Talk:Good News Bible

Re: My article concerns

I have concerns about two sentences in this artcle:

The GNT has been adopted as the standard for many Protestant churches.

I don't think I've heard anyone refer to the TEV as "A Standard" or "The Standard" Protestant Bible. There are people who hate the TEV with a purple passion. Just ask David Cloud.

Bottom line: The RSV was a standard. The NIV is a standard. The TEV is not.

...and the text lacks the extensive footnotes found in many other translations.

False. I have the 1976 edition of the TEV, and there are footnotes on almost every page.

- hoshie

Footnotes were correct

The line on footnotes was correct. I compared the 1976 GNT and the NRSV and there was a difference.

hoshie 09:46, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Declaration of Interest

In the past, I have donated to the American Bible Society (ABS). My donation in no way reflects any bias for or against the ABS or it's activities.

iHoshie 11:35, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the declaration of interst! But be biased! Why not, this is a talk page? I can be as biased as I like on a talk page! For example, I have a strong POV that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and I'm wholly for the work of ABS and other Bible Societies and organisations! And I don't mind (on the talk pages) saying it. However, whenever I write anything in a Wikipedia article, I do work to try NOT to put any POV stuff, unless it's clearly stated as such "Christians believe that...", etc. Brusselsshrek 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My Declaration is only for the article space, and not talk pages. I'm for the ABS and the basic tentets of the faith. The Declaration doesn't affect that. - Thanks, Hoshie | 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Text Basis

There was a rather POV and misleading unsourced statement in the article about the text used for the TEV translation. I removed it. If anyone wants to insert something about the text behind the TEV, they used BH3 and UBS3, with a couple of other sources for the deuterocanon (source).--VAcharon 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GNB Web.GIF

Image:GNB Web.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation type/Controversy

About the type of translation...I wouldn't call the method of translation a paraphrase, since it is an actual translation, but rather I would call it periphrastic (meaning for meaning, but still a translation), or dynamic equivalence. Also, are there any websites with people _supporting_ the TEV/GNT? All I ever see on these bible topics is links to KJV-onlyists condemning all other versions. It would be nice to see something besides controversy all the time. Flutequeen84 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Brachter

I removed the stuff about Brachter as unnecessary. He was one of a group of scholars and the others may or may not have agreed with them. But they were educated scholars employed to do a good translation and whatever their opinion of the texts would not affect a professional job. He was only one of a group in a committee and any bias he may or may not have head would not be able to take precedence. So this argument is quite clearly nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.8.138 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove referenced criticism just because you disagree with it. That is censorship. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Article: GNB or GNT?

"The Good News Translation (GNT) as it is known in North America, or the Good News Bible (GNB) as it is known in the rest of the world." Given that this is the case, it seems to me that the primary name of the article should be on the "Good News Bible" rather than "Good News Translation". Even in North America, in fact, nobody actually calls it the Good News Translation; this is just something that Zondervan came up with, and they don't even publish it now. Given that it's still used by HarperCollins and other publishers, in common usage, as well as historically, I suggest renaming the article and having "Good News Translation" redirect to "Good News Bible". AndrewNJ (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since at least one other person agreed enough to change the text of the article, I've moved Good News Translation to Good News Bible. I've found, furthermore, that most of the current editions published by the American Bible Society seem to have "Good News Bible" as the main title, and "Good News Translation" as sort of a subtitle. Very confusing, overall. Referring to it as the GNB is the simplest solution for encyclopedic purposes. AndrewNJ (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Isaiah 7:14 litmus test" - painfully unclear

If you're gonna talk about the failure of the test, don't skip the explanation. What is considered "failure" by conservative Christians? I can't figure out if it means that GNT uses "virgin" or not. --166.205.138.151 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation VS Paraphrase VS Extensive use of Dynamic Equivalence

I think this article would be suited with a section on the translation philosophy with viewpoints of those both pro and against. Also the Box calls the translation type "far end of dynamic equivalence" while the page Dynamic and formal equivalence calls it "Extensive use of dynamic equivalence" or paraphrase or both". I would suggest updating this article to use the phrase 'extensive use of...". I find it more clear. In this sentence I read some POV: "It was formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV), but in 2001 was renamed the Good News Translation in the USA, because of misconceptions that a paraphrase is not a genuine translation." 1st I'm assuming good faith that this is not intentional POV. 2nd The reference link took me to a 404 page. I take strong exception to the use of the word 'misconception'. Your thoughts and response are appreciated. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

Since images of first editions of books are preferred in infoboxes, the current image should be replaced by that of a first edition Good News Bible, if possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality/accuracy

Does anyone have any citations on how accurate (or not) this translation is considered relative to other contemporary English translations? Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)