Talk:Myles Coverdale

message: Footnote 2, the Richard Rex article, does not seem to be correct. I have just read the entire article; there is nothing in there that says Henry VIII specifically said a Coverdale Bible should be in every church, nor does it say a single word about them being chained to the altar. This is probably because it was not the Coverdale bible that was ordered to be in every church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation 

message: I don't know what this means. Were the interpreters shaped like letters and he "read" them? (fotoguzzi)69.64.235.42 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quoted expression would be best paraphrased as 'five different versions' in modern English.  Coverdale did not have sufficient knowledge of the original Bible languages (Hebrew and Greek) to translate directly, so he made use of others' efforts and compiled his English version from pre-existing translations into English - primarily Tyndale's work, German (several sources possible here, 1st printed edition 1466), and the well-established Latin of Jerome's Vulgate.  Solid scholarship, nothing mystical or magical! John M Brear (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...he used 'five soundry interpreters' in Latin, English and 'Douche' (German) as source text. 

message: This article doesn't really read like an encyclopedia article. It's full of descriptive words ("unfortunately," "repressive") without really explaining a lot of background (what are all these acts and conventions?). It reads more like an early Anglican hagiography than a reference work, additionally, although there are some citations, much is left to be desired (e.g. the claim that a child was burned alive for possessing the Lord's Prayer in English is the sort of thing that needs a citation). I'm also concerned about some of the technical terms used -- e.g. "Anglo-Italian" is not explained, and it is certainly not a term used in history of this period (particularly given that Italy didn't exist at this time).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.22.146 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: I have done a lot of work on this article already, and intend to continue to do so, until is is   up to a really high standard. However, I feel that even now it no longer deserves the "multiple issues" banner.  So I shall be removing this, over the next few weeks.  Any constructive comments or suggestions strictly on the subject of the article (not unsigned "blog" type discussions please!) will be seriously considered and replied to. Someone has already kindly agreed to read through my English style for clarity and conciseness.
Okan 13:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification - removal of "multiple issues" banner

message: Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I understand the article in it's latter part says that Coverdale "died in poverty on May 26, 1569, in London" which stands in contrast to what it says in the opening sentence and in the side-box, namely: "Died	20 January 1569". Is this in fact a discrepancy or did I get it wrong? JakubZet (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Coverdale's death