Talk:List of English Bible translations

message: I'd like to suggest keeping all bibles categorized in a single list by date. There should be a collumn or three for contents (OT, NT, Ap, and portions thereof), but the scripture should all be sorted by date.  Also, Many newer versions have trademark codes (NIV, NLT, etc.) These should be used for 'code'. In cases where the Bible is not well known and translated/edited by a single person, the person's last name should be the identifying code. 
I have a list of 450 potential bible translations, of which I can point to freely available sources for about 150 versions.  With the current organization of this list, It's too much effort to try to manage wikipedia with my own.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of list 

message: The Orthodox Study Bible, in it's currently released version with New Testament & Psalms contains an exact copy of the New King James Version translation and therefore should not be included in a list of "English Bible Translations" because it is not a unique translation.
There is an upcoming version that will contain the old testament. This version is supposed to contain both some text that will be revised from the NKJV with modifications based on the LXX. Some of it will contain completely new translation from the LXX (primarly books no included in Protestant "canon" and therefore no NKJV exists). Whenever this work is completed then it would be proper to add it to the list in this article. --Diablorex 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible now exists.  I have a copy.Tim (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Study Bible removed 

message: Why is this listed in the Complete section, when, as admitted in the entry, it's not? Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyndale 

message: * Modern English Bible translations to List of English Bible translations.
The modern English translations article exists only as a single inconsistently maintained list. Unification into a single list would provide less duplicate forks for the same subject. There is no need for a separate list of modern translations. Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there isn't a need for two pages, but if one should go the Modern English Bible translations page shouldn't be it.  List of English Bible translations seems only to be organized alphabetically, with less explanatory information. Fralupo (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: History of the bible is not a list of the bible.  I'm very interested in both subjects but they are completely different.  Merging a list of every translation into a historical article invites censorship.  Any translation of the complete text of either the new or old testament is a significant event and deserves notice.  Keep the list separate from the history.   More data on the different items in the list would be nice (like language vernacular, geo-location of origin, readability information, etc. )Mikey (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: There are several references to some "Greek New Testament", which its Wikipedia article clarifies nowadays normally means the Nestle-Aland version. However, there is also a specific reference to a "Nestle-Aland text of the Greek New Testament", so this must be standarized: "Greek New Testament" or "Nestle-Aland"? or are these two separate sources? Aldo L (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek New Testament 

message: While the NKJV may have been originally designed to be by the Majority Text it is clearly a TR based text, with Majority stuff in the footnotes.  There are a couple of distinctions from the AV TR, having to do with stuff like punctuation, with led to a difference like Hebrews 3:16.  I am changing the text to say Received Text.
StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New King James 

message: Aside from passages which were verse in the original, should poetic versiopns of Scripture be included here? I strongly think they should be in a separate article.Pete unseth (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetic versions 

message: Would it be alright to add the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition to the list? In Citer (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be added.Pete unseth (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition to the list? 

message: I created an article on a Bible translation that is not so well known. Another editor objected on ground of not being notable. That editor suggested I include it here, instead. Recently, an editor removed some translations from this article on grounds of not being notable. I can see both arguments. But I would like to find ways to refer to translations that are not quite notable enough for articles, but are still notable enough to be listed here.  Any ideas from the rest of you? Pete unseth (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article does include some translations that are not notable. But the article can and should be as broad as possible. One alternative is arguments about some people's favorite, though obscure, translation. Pete unseth (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, if we have agreed that article scope is as broad as possible, and we'll accept any translation whether notable or not, there's not really a good argument against including such a ridiculous and atrocious "Bible" as the one you mention, is there. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  which translations to include? 

message: Does the scope of this article include non-notable entries, in contrast to usual policy on list articles? If yes, what is the threshold for inclusion, a WP:RS? Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article does include some translations that are not notable. But the article can and should be as broad as possible. One alternative is arguments about some people's favorite, though obscure, translation. Pete unseth (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, if we have agreed that article scope is as broad as possible, and we'll accept any translation whether notable or not, there's not really a good argument against including such a ridiculous and atrocious "Bible" as the one you mention, is there. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Please... 112.201.11.225 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about King James 21st Century? 

message: As the preface states, what is necessary for "completion" differs according to the translator(s) and/or the religious group. It may be useful, therefore, to add a column that states which books (or book groups) are included in the translation.  The NIV and CSB, for example, contains the Tanakh and New Testament, while the NRSV contains these as well as the Deuterocanon/OT Apocrypha. For the sake of succinctness, I'd propose a simple division into OT, Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, NT, and notes for any special cases. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a column on which book groups are included? 

message: I decided to boldly move the section from Aramaic original New Testament theory to this page. I believe it should be kept here separately in order for redirects to lead properly to this section. Veverve (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Aramaic to English translations section 

message: The column for denominations contains information that is too broad for some translations. A list that contains three or more denominations means the translation is not specific to a denomination. For Alter's, I am removing "Zionism" since it is not a denomination. I am weeding some others, also. If there are solid reasons to replace some, please do so. Pete unseth (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominations 

message: This list is missing The Interpreted New Testament (2020) and The First Nations Version (2021). --114.77.144.65 (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest translations 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :The Original Bible for Modern Readers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The Original Bible for Modern Readers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Original Bible for Modern Readers" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Is there some authority that assigns an abbreviation to each version of the Bible? Why don't some of the listed Bibles have abbreviations? Where can I find a complete list of abbreviations in all languages? --58.105.78.220 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors of each translation often provide the abbreviation themselves, as the translation is published. There is no “authority” to do so. That’s also why some do not have one. As for abbreviations in other languages: WP may be your best option. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do the abbreviations come from?