Talk:Modern English Bible translations

message: Within the Sacred Name Translations, the bible named The Besorah is claimed to be a plagiarized copy of The Scriptures 1998.  However, the source (number 14) for this claim is a link to a password protected website:  besorah.synthasite.com.  How can we verify the legitimacy of this claim if we are not allowed access to the source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.98.200 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of password protect source

message: Table form for the list of translations is hard to edit, and makes it impossible to add other pertinent information. Plus the category of "dynamic" versus "formal" equivalence is not agreed upon by all, nor is it the most useful thing to say about all translations.
Suggestion: Make this plain text with sections and subsections. Some may object that this will make the regular table of contents unwieldly, and that is 100% true. However, there is an easy solution: Create a manuel, easy-to-edit table of contents like the one here. Dovi 10:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get time, I'll make a stab at creating one (and stick it here first).  Since about the only thing that is a pain to change afterwards is the name (cf. "BibleHistory" template, now called EnglishTranslations), what would you suggest?  ? Brusselsshrek 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, see Infobox#Bible translation, Brusselsshrek 15:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table form 

message: There is The Bible in Living English translated by Steven T. Byington from original texts over the course of 60 years, published in 1972, but I don't know where to put in in the article. Help. Thanks. RJII 04:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for nothing. I stuck it in there. Hopefully it's in the right place. RJII 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible in Living English

message: Are there any "modern" Bible translations that are copyright free? I heard that the KJV has no copyrights on it but most modern versions cannot have derivative works made of them without paying somone royalties. You might want to discuss this somewhere in the article. Please put your response on this talk page because I don't watch this article's edits. MPS 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try out New English Translation - free, modern, electronically-available, (theoretically) unbiased.  Brusselsshrek 10:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the NET is free, it's not in the public domain (so you can't quote from it extensively or sell any part of it without the publisher's consent). The World English Bible is in the public domain; it's a revision of the ASV. It's not quite finished, but you can read one of its many draft stages. --J. J. 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source modern English translations

message: I ran across this one the other day
The Updated Bible
It's free (as in beer). It appears they have removed Acts, fiddled with Matthew some and put John at the beginning of the NT. I couldn't find it in a Wikipedia search so thought I would throw it in. I've googled around it a bit too but haven't found any particular controversy about it.
:Their reasons for removing Acts seem to be very unscholarly, which leaves the impression that it is hardly worth taking seriously. Another web-page about Christmas leans heavily on an obscure paper by Shlomo Pines.  The site looks highly idiosyncratic to me.  DFH 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this fit? (UPDV) 

message: Where does the Lorimer Bible fit in? I don't know if it belongs here or on the miscelaneous page, but it ought to get a mention. It is 20th c, NT only, in Scots dialect.  --Doric Loon 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorimer

message: LDS should have its own section just as the Jehovah's Witness section.  This includes the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the King James Version, and though the King James Version is textually the same, it contains various footnotes that reference LDS works and the Joseph Smith Translation.  This could be referenced as the LDS Publication of the KJV, the KJV supported by the LDS church, the KJV included with the standard works, or the KJV in use by LDS, in order to distinguish it from the KJV that does not include LDS footnotes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.87.129 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS section

message: Is there a Muslim English translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)? It would be a useful addition to this page if there is one. I'm not sure in what language Muslims consult the Hebrew Bible (I assume they consult it for research). Hkp-avniel (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim English translation of Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)?

message: Where the article says ...
"... in 1971, Taylor went on to be the first to provide a paraphrase of the whole Bible. It proved to be a watershed in Bible versions, awaking the world to the advantages of reading the Bible in modern English."
It seems to me that too much credit is being giving to TLB, and not enough to the RSV.  Note that the New American Standard was published in 1971 also.  It took much longer to put together than the TLB and, therefore, could not have taken its inspiration from the TLB.  In fact, the NASB was a "conservative" response to the "liberal" RSV of the 1950s, and was not constructed with TLB in mind at all.  (I can't quote you chapter and verse -- no pun intended -- here.  But this statement can be verified in a number of standard histories on modern English translations.)  Many later translations (e.g. Good News/Today's English and the NIV) were attempts to do what the NASB did, but in a more accessible or literary manner, or they were attempts (e.g. NRSV and ESV) to update the original RSV.  The Living Bible was certainly important.  I won't disagree there.  But I think the importance of the RSV is neglected here.
And I just got reminded, the NIV translation project actually began in the late sixties, again before TLB was published.  So here's another important version that could not have been inspired by the TLB.  Isn't too much credit being given to TLB here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.10.183 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The 1960s saw a large number of Bible translation activities in response to the RSV--NASB, NIV, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, etc.  These were not influenced by the Living Bible at all.  (Taivo (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Credit to The Living Bible? 

message: This list is beginning to get rather unwieldy, with some sections full of translations that are entirely irrelevant. A few of the supposed King James Version derivatives, for example, appear to be simply someone who spent a week or so going through the KJV with a modern American spell-checker.  Could we come up with some criteria that translations on here have to meet, e.g. a requirement to have been commercially published, or in the case of Internet translations, sponsored by a legitimate body? AndrewNJ (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, the introductory notes to any translation will reveal the method used.  Translations should strictly be those volumes where someone works directly with the Hebrew/Greek (or Vulgate or LXX) texts.  "Rephrasing the KJV" is not a translation and shouldn't be listed as such.  So the Living Bible (rephrasing the KJV) isn't a translation, but the New Living Bible (which used the Hebrew/Greek texts) is.  (Taivo (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paring down the list 

message: The list was appearing below the references instead of under the headers, and I've tried several times to fix it -- unsuccessfully.  Can anybody help?EGMichaels (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You were missing a | just before the last }  (Taivo (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!EGMichaels (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Partial Translations List 

message: This is a suggestion, to split the section into two separate sections.  Dynamic Equivalent translations are developed on the basis of translating function to function.  To traslante an idiom from one language to another requires the use of a completely different set of words.  A dynamic equivalent translation will remain true to the intent of the original languages.  On the other hand a paraphrases take significant liberties in explaining a text.  
Not sure of the process, but I think it would be helpful to distinguish these two categories of bible translations. G.W. (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic Equivalent vs Paraphrase 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Modern English Bible translations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160904041222/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm to http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914014537/http://www.theaussiebible.com.au/ to http://www.theaussiebible.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The title of this article is modern English translations of the Bible, so why does the list of bestselling translations in the section “Popularity of translations” include Reina-Valera, a Spanish translation? 2A04:4A43:554F:CC5F:90E8:49E7:78A8:1323 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish translation?