Template talk:English Bible translation navbox

message: As I've been browsing the Bible translation articles, I've kept expecting to see a navbox at the bottom with direct links to other articles about Bible translations.
The list of translations in the template is currently incomplete, and the grouping probably needs to be changed.  Please make any improvements that you deem necessary!
The translations in the template are intended to be ordered chronologically.  I've used the year of publication of the complete Bible for this purpose.
--stephenw32768<user page><talk> 11:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The box looks great and a chronological form is a probably the best idea.  I noticed, however, a few missing:  Clear Word Bible, Quaker Bible, and Joseph Smith Translation. 68.116.99.30 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few missing .. 

message: ;Proposal
:The above discussion states that the current order in this template is based on the date of publication of the New Testament. It is proposed to re-order and sub-divide the template based instead on the date of completing both Old and New Testaments.
;Oppose
;Support 
:As this template is about Bible translations, it should be ordered and divided according to the date of completing the minimum definition of the Christian Bible, i.e. OT and NT, ignoring the date of apocrypha if included. Other scholars such as http://bible-researcher.com/versions.html count e.g. HCSB as C21. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to have the completed Bible as the basis for ordering.  The Christian Bible is indeed defined to contain both the OT and NT.  Also agree regarding the deuterocanonical/apocryphal as many translations completed said texts at various stages in the project or simply do not translate them at all (e.g. NASB).  If that is the manner we order them, there are a couple (International Standard, Holman Christian Standard) that need to be moved from the 20th century to the 21st. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I support this too.  As it's been more than a year since this has been proposed with no opposition, I think it's time to be bold and change this. I'm a bit sleepy now, I might do this tomorrow. Madlobster (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence and divisions 

message: I went ahead and added the Complete Jewish Bible to the box in the proper order of translation dating.  I believe it belongs on the list for two reason.  First, it contains both the Old and the New Testament.  Secondly, Messianic Judaism is generally defined as a Christian sect or movement.  Regardless of the controversy of said movement/sect/belief system, the translation in question is, for all intents and purposes, one of the Christian Bible. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Jewish Bible 

message: Would it be fitting to have an additional section devoted to Bibles that are obviously not serious, like The Brick Testament and the LOLCat Bible Translation Project? The ones currently on this list are/have all been used by various sects of Judeo-Christianity, but the others are still technically Bibles, so I'm not sure. Supernerd11  Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke Bibles? 

message: Links to the Orthodox Jewish Bible links to a page about Messianic Bible Translations, which has nothing to say about an "Orthodox Jewish Bible". There is already the "Complete Jewish Bible", "World Messianic", "Heinz Cassirer's translation" and "Tree of Life" links to the page on Messianic Bible Translations. This makes a total of five links to the same page, including at least one which is misleading.. Maybe I'm missing something, but IMO the Orthodox Jewish Bible link should be removed.
Then, there's how there aren't actually specifically Jewish Bible translations (except those of Messianic Jews) like JPS and ArtScroll, so either they should be included or the title should specify that this is for Christian Bibles.
--96.22.225.134 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Jewish Bible and Jewish Study Bible 

message: Could we somehow include partial works?  The translation that immediately springs to mind is the highly regarded 20th century "Phillips New Testament in Modern English" (J.B. Phillips).  How might we do this?  A section for "New Testament" translations?  (How far should such an extension go?  For instance, Phillips himself also did a little OT translation work.)  Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A related issue is that of Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) translations.  For instance, the newly published Hebrew Bible (Alter) has recently been added (a good move), but that is, of course, does not (by definition) have a New Testament. How do we handle all this? Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I have now done this for some known examples.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   As far as it goes, it works. I'll be honest, though: this template is already so busy, and so slanted (understandably) toward Christian translations, that I'm not sure it's all that worthwhile to do this. (And once we open the template to these, if it then opens the template to NT-only Christian translations, it may really balloon the template to outrageous proportions. I'm far more inclined to leave access to Jewish translations here through the one link in the "Lists" section at the bottom, and perhaps to create a separate template for Jewish translations. (And, to be perfectly candid, I have no interest in encouraging "less observant" Jewish readers to be involved with this template. But that's a POV, and may be an inappropriate motivation.) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Testament translations? 

message: The current template has a single level of grouping: "5th-11th century"; "Middle English" etc.  It is also, but implicitly rather than explicitly, for full Christian Bibles: Old Testament plus New Testament.  I propose adding an optional second level for partial translations.  See Template:Jurassic Coast for an example of this principle at work.  For instance, the "20th century" group and appearance would remain almost as now, but would also have, near the end, a small second-level group "New Testament" to include J.B. Phillips' well-known version, and perhaps also an "Old Testament" to mention his translations on some of the OT prophets.  Then "21st century" would also have, near the end, a second-level group "Hebrew Bible" to include Robert Alter's recent publication.  Note how this retains sensitivity to Christian and Jewish conventions, allowing "Old Testament" and "Hebrew Bible" to remain distinctive.  Any thoughts?  I propose going ahead with this in a week or so (i.e. around, or shortly after, New Year 2019). Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done this for some known examples.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   As far as it goes, it works. I'll be honest, though: this template is already so busy, and so slanted (understandably) toward Christian translations, that I'm not sure it's all that worthwhile to do this. (And once we open the template to these, if it then opens the template to NT-only Christian translations, it may really balloon the template to outrageous proportions. I'm far more inclined to leave access to Jewish translations here through the one link in the "Lists" section at the bottom, and perhaps to create a separate template for Jewish translations. (And, to be perfectly candid, I have no interest in encouraging "less observant" Jewish readers to be involved with this template. But that's a POV, and may be an inappropriate motivation.) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Separation by Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles Doremon764 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible type within dates 

message: I just removed the NASB study Bible from the list because the article was deleted a while ago, so it was the only one without a link.  I don't know if this is the best route or not; what do you guys think?  The other options seem to be:
# Link the translation, i.e. "Study Bible for NASB" (too lazy to disambiguate the link here)
# Link the translation, but as the whole link: "Study Bible for NASB"
# Link to a section in the article mentioning the study Bible (unfortunately, the study Bible isn't mentioned in the NASB article, although I suppose that's probably fixable).
# Don't link anything: "Study Bible for NASB"
# Don't include these
In any case except 5, I imagine there are several more we'd have to add - I know at least the EHV has a study Bible, and probably others. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Bibles