Talk:The Clear Word

message: I've removed the following paragraph:
  It has been reported that the The Clear Word has gained wide use within some Adventist circles.  
  It was endorsed by the former President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,  
  Pastor Robert Folkenberg. It was also advertised on more than one occasion in the official Adventist 
  magazine, Adventist Review.Folkenberg endorsement and Adventist Review advertisement, reproduced by SDAnet.org
The reason I removed it is to ask what value it lends to the article. For a non-Seventh-day Adventist who stumbles upon this article, did or does this paragraph lend value? Could I gain anything from it? I personally don't believe so. Why would I care if it "has gained wide use within some Adventist Circles." Perhaps it needs to be broken up and each point expanded. Anyone else have any opinons? --Maniwar (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maniwar, I believe that the paragraph is useful because it demonstrates how well received the Clear Word was. I would like to reintroduce the paragraph in a new section titled "Reception" or similar. Tonicthebrown 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That maybe better suited if it's in a section that expands on it. How it was, it really wasn't lending value. Again, I'm trying to think of an outsider trying to glean neutral, yet informative information on it. Thinking like that, it really did not lend anything. Go for it in a new section and hopefully expanded. --Maniwar (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, thanks for fixing my typos. I did those additions too fast and was a bit distracted. --Maniwar (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Further to what I said above, please see the articles on Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, Good News Translation and others. It is quite normal to include information on the version's reception or impact in the church. I disagree that it is not useful information for an outsider. The fact that the president of the GC himself endorsed the version, and its advertisement in the Review, is a testament to the high-profile it gained. It also informs the background to the controversy. At the moment I don't have time to expand the section, but I do think it should remain in the article as it is. Tonicthebrown 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section should stay.  Like Tonicthebrown pointed out, most articles about the English versions of the Bible have some note as to its reception by the Christian community.  A good comparison would be the Joseph Smith Translation article.  This particular translation came from a specific denomination, rather than a team of translators from differing traditions.  The article rightly references it's level of acceptance in the denomination of its origin. 208.110.200.189 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this paragraph needed?

message: Can anyone provide the source texts used for this translation?  That would be a valuable addition to the standard box on the right. 208.110.200.189 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that, but could not find anything anywhere. I do remember speaking with Dr. Blanco and Dr. Springett when the Clear Word was first printed and they both said that the original text was used extensively. But since I can find no source to back up what I was told, I'm not gonna answer that one. --Maniwar (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  The answer is going to be somewhat more involved than "the original text," though, considering it's a paraphrased translation, that is a start.  I wonder if the publisher and/or the translators can be contacted via e-mail?  It might be worth looking into.  208.110.200.189 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good thought, but without a source it would be an opinion or assumption and thus labeled POV. I would venture on the same opinion, but again, no facts just leaves it as opinion. I wonder if the publishers ever released a statement answering that question? --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly need some type of statement from the publisher or an unbiased third-party source.  A statement by the publisher would be good, but it would have to be checked with other sources.  The field of textual criticism is something often vigorously pursued by the Christian community, so it's hard to imagine there isn't something out there.  209.59.43.237 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual Basis? 

message: Why does the 'See Also' section have a laundry list of contemporary bibles when the link to List of English Bible translations will do?  Seems like a waste.  209.59.36.99 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes209.59.43.88 08:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been reworked.  209.59.46.179 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also? 

message: Hi editors to this article, I don't have this one on my watchlist, and it's been a while since I came by here, but I'm impressed with its content. I see User:Maniwar and User:Tonicthebrown's names frequently in the revision history, and also many other editors. Well done guys! Colin MacLaurin 07:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: I do not think that the (apparently self-published, and anyway questionably-reliable) comments of Dale Ratzlaff and Verle Streifling count as "Critics of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in general". Beyond these two, it is hard to find any source from outside the Adventist orbit, and thus hard to see evidence of notability of this book. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word_Bible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.230.91 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word_Bible 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Clear Word. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://adventist.org.au/about_adventists/misconceptions/clear_word_bible
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/articles/clear.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Wikipedians!! Can a Wikipedia editor who’s more knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing help improve this article—like, for example, spacing quotes. It’s time for improvement!! 2601:407:C400:733:50F3:1C2:DA31:10EE (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it incredible that you did not acknowledge the serious reworking of this article on 19 Nov 2022 that identified the unabashedly nonbiblical, Adventist paraphrases in this "bible." However, what I especially don't understand is why this article now directs to the Pacific Press Publishing Association, an Adventist publishing house, but not to the one that actually publishes Jack Blanco's paraphrase. If a redirect to a publishing house is necessary, which I think is completely wrong-headed, it should at least be redirected to the Review and Herald Publishing Association, which IS associated with CW's publication. There is also the strange reality that, despite the complete elimination of this article, the Wiki article, "List of English Bible Translations," still includes "Clear Word Bible"! I think that CW should not only continue to be so listed but should also be retained as a separate article, along with the evidence that it is seriously biased toward Adventism. Wctrenchard (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It’s time for improvement!!