Talk:Amplified Bible

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New External Link Addition(s)

I would like to add a link to the Amplified Bible translation as provided by the site BibleShark.com. Heath (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hype

There's a lot of gushing PR-style hype in this which needs removing. Ben Finn (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, upon further investigation, the Overview section is copied largely from http://www.lockman.org/amplified/ A rewrite is sorely needed. Bcdefg123 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

I was surprised to see that a Concerns section is now the very first heading, a placement that in terms of article structure and undue weight reflects an obvious editorial bias on the part of user @Darlig Gitarist:, in violation of Wikipedia’s policy for maintaining a neutral point of view.

I have put together a 42-page document entitled Context is for Kings: Is the Amplified Bible Guilty of Illegitimate Totality Transfer? which I hope you will consider adding as an external link:

http://www.lifetheory.org/context-is-for-kings.pdf

Emptymountains (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that the ordering of the article changes its POV. However, I do think the article benefits from a history section which now comes first. While you may not like my edits, they simply reflected the comments of several theologians including Gordon Fee, a highly respected and well-published biblical scholar. I'm not sure what would be gained by referencing a self-published work. I would suggest you find a reputable schloar who supports your thesis in a work published by a respected publishing house. Then you can reflect such comments in the article. But the fact that I was unable to find any does not mean I am biased. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article on using self-published works says in part, "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable"." Besides, you just added a citation from bible-researcher.com, a self-published website! 184.181.5.151 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of my work precludes the goal of being published, for my writing is constantly being updated with new-found material. For example, I just added a 16th published source discussing illegitimate totality transfer, this time from Outside of Eden, adding two new pages. 184.181.5.151 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for suggesting Biblical Studies: How to Interpret the Bible by Sam Storms. I have added it as a 17th published source, adding 3 new pages of material. Keep them coming! Emptymountains (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrectly attributing Veverve's edit to me. I suggest you read the article on how to read a page's history.

Emptymountains was suggesting that Wikipedia should reference his own self-published work to refute the work of well-respected theologians. Please see WP:V which states that self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrectly attributing Tinman2b's edit to Veverve, so I would kindly suggest you read the article on how to read a page's history too. Cheers! Emptymountains (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, regarding that quote added by @Darlig Gitarist: which you removed, it is a digital book (which I just bought for $1.99) so there are no page numbers. The chapter/section title is "Lexical Analysis." Emptymountains (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darlig Gitarist, I completed work on ~~Context is for Kings:~~ For God So Prized the World: Is the Amplified Bible Guilty of Illegitimate Totality Transfer? which is now ~~108~~ 216 pages. I still haven't come across any examples of illegitimate totality transfer that have checked out:

~~http://www.lifetheory.org/context-is-for-kings.pdf~~

http://www.lifetheory.org/for-god-so-prized-the-world.pdf

Word for word equivalence

I corrected the translation type, which the Amplified Bible itself says, "The Amplified Bible is a Literal Equivalent translation." This can also be verified on the official NIV website's Bible translation chart:

https://www.thenivbible.com/bible-translation-chart/

This, as well as the reading level, can also be verified on the Logos Wiki's "Bible translation spectrum":

https://wiki.logos.com/Bible_Translation_Spectrum

Emptymountains (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]