Talk:Luther Bible

Luther did not translate to "erode the influence of priests"

Luther did not want priests or higher clerics to lord it over the people's faith. He wanted to get people as close to Christ as he could by putting the Bible into their own words. Luther was a conservative, not a radical reformer. This article has the makings of a good article. I hope that those who initiated it will not see this as a criticism but as an enhancement of what they did.drboisclair 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

David, kudos on a very well done page. Might you consider using Schaff's material on the Luther Bible here?

I think that this material can and should be integrated into the article, but I think that after having incorporating the data the text could be transferred to Wikiquote via Transwiki. Schaaf-Herzog sub loco Martin Luther was the material out of which the Martin Luther article was written. I will work on incorporating it here if there is no objection. --Drboisclair 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I got the two sources mixed up! The source of the long quotation is Schaff's history, not Schaaf's encyclopedia.--Drboisclair 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Schaff material archived

I thought that since the material was rather lengthy I would put it in the above archive. The material in the main article has been transwikied to Wikiquote. I hope that this meets with everyone's approval. I will be integrating the Schaff material into the main article by quotation and allusion.--Drboisclair 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What from?

What was the OT translated from? Article says nothing on this very basic point. Johnbod 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Info Box?

Maybe we should include an info box to the right per other Bible Translation pages. See New American Standard Bible for an example. 68.113.47.82 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Separation from Rome

I recall that in the 2003 film Luther, Frederick the Wise said "this will separate us from Rome forever", referring to breaking the monopoly of the Bible being published in Latin, a language the common German folk rarely understood. Can we put something alluding to this in the article? -NordsternMN 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC) A film is not a Reliable Source. This applies to fiction generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

"The whole Bible in other languages were considered a watershed in the advance of human intellectual history. Chronologically, we have: The Bible in French: published in 1528 by Jacques Lefevre D’etaples or Faber Stapulensis); The Bible in Spanish: published in Basel in 1569 by Casiodoro de Reina ("Biblia del Oso"), The Bible in English: King James version, published in 1611, The Bible in Dutch: the States Bible, which was ready in 1637."

This seems to imply the King James Version of 1611 as the first English translation, which it certainly wasn't, since there was already Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible. Evercat (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Many problems"?

In the first paragraph, it states "But many problems have come up regarding him largely and arbitrarily editing the Holy Bible." The article goes into no detail on this, however, and the only problem listed is Luther adding the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 (this incidentally needs a citation). What are these "many problems", then? I'd either like to see examples of these, or to just delete the sentence. Lord Seth (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentence deleted. If the sentences is to be added back please provide examples and their citations. Schroederrt (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Major bias

The following text: "The whole Bible in other languages were [sic] considered a watershed in the advance of human intellectual history. Chronologically, we have — Bible in French: published in 1528 by Jacques Lefevre d’Étaples (or Faber Stapulensis); Bible in Spanish: published in Basel in 1569 by Casiodoro de Reina (Biblia del Oso); Bible in Czech: Bible of Kralice, printed between 1579–1593; Bible in English: King James version, published in 1611; Bible in Dutch: the States Bible, which was ready in 1637" represents significant denominational bias, as it only lists the first Protestant translations.

The first Bible published in French was 1487, the first in Spanish was 1478 - both of which were Catholic translations. Nor is there any mention of the 17 editions of the German Bible published prior to Luther's (the first of which was published in 1466). This is a glarring error, as he drew on the existing translations. 82.110.160.178 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article also fails to mention translations into Czech from Latin, starting in 1360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as an uncited, biased, non-NPOV and ungrammatical claim as well. And being that it wasn't the first time someone mentioned it, I removed it. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Note 3

In note 3, "all" appears. It should be "alone". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags of December 2009

I tagged this article, because upon reading it, it read far more like a personal reflection of a Luther fan than a disinterested observation. It also can be quite redundant. And encyclopedia articles don't have essay-like conclusions. That I'll remove, but the rest needs a major trimming and neutralizing. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, POV? OK, the "nationalism" theory in the text seems a POV, because the words (nationalism used frequently in the text) are in general without historical dates, events etc. for evedents. Yes this would be a real POV. What would you read? e.g. Luther made a boring and senseless translation? Or he made a translation of the Bible, like a other people made it? ... The article is a normal text about Luthers Bible. It's like 95 percent of special books to the topic and the rest the 5 percent are Literature from sects (Sekten), olden days and so on. Ok, I would write it in another way ... but I suppose that your message on the site is not rigt. The delation of the passages you erased, I don't understand. --- Possible it would be the best, when somebody will use the German wikipedia Article to the topic, to place more facts on the article-site. On the other hand the article needs a better structure, so that it will be better to understand. with friendly greetings Sönke (from Germany) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It reads like it is proselytizing for Lutheran converts through excess praise. It is not neutral.oknazevad (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised beginning of "Impact" section / added reference to other German Bible translations

This section began with a sentence referring to the Zürich Bible, stating that it preceded the Luther Bible. While this statement may be accurate, it seems out of place here, and it weakens the discussion in this section. I deleted this sentence and replaced it with a sentence referring to the Wikipedia article on German Bible translations. 24.189.121.114 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)