Talk:Bible society

message: Catholicism
Catholicism Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Church teaching, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible(Catholic Propaganda. Catholics NO evangelize). In some cases free distribution of Bibles has simply led to these copies being used for profane purposes.(This is too much derogatory toward evangelicals,and MUST TO BE DELETED JUST NOW!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbautista (talk • contribs) .
:I'll delete that last sentence, but I'm reverting all your other changes. For the record, you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and I could get you blocked again. You have been reverted countless times by some eight different users. Do not reinsert the material. Melchoir 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable as it is an unsourced statement.  BigDT 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  catholicism 

message: The statement is partly true:  "Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Catholic Church teachings, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible."
That is the teaching of Catholicism, but most of the Protestant societies I'm aware of (Wycliffe, etc.) don't "simply give away the text."  There is a lot of training and missionary work as part of the translating effort.  Perhaps this can be reworded so as not to be POV and more accurate.
: This "simply giving away the text of the Bible" may be more accurate about Protestant Bible societies' activities in the past than in the present, I suspect. --Jim Henry 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Section 

message: Perhaps there should be some mention of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft  as well.  68.116.112.245 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added and a request has been made on the German page to add an article about them.  71.93.238.53 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 

message: Why is a notorious killer cult --no blood transfusions allowed for bleeding to death JW cult adherents-- with a multilated non-Bible "bible" called the "Jehovah Witnesses" INCLUDED and the Artists for Israel Bible Society EXCLUDED?  What are we running here, a mental health clinic listing?  The well-respected afii.org website is deleted from this external links category but one of its bibles is included under Messianic Bible translations? Uh... It seems that a certain lack of fair-mindedness is in play.  It certainly is not an "INAPPROPRIATE" LINK and has just as much right to the label "Bible Society" as any of the other listings.  There should not be a tendentious editorial bias here but any organization that is attempting to faithfully distribute the Scriptures should be included and no one little finger should be allowed to regally press the delete button, for that little finger reflects negatively on the whole encyclopedia.
:I am the translator of the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) and the Yiddish NT and the Executive Editor of our other Bible Society translations.  As to the notability of our Bible Society see this review http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2003/72/72_05.html by the Lausanne people.  The editor of all of my books, Donald McGavran, was Billy Graham's choice for Key Note Speaker of the historic Lausanne Conference in 1974 if by chance you don't know what "Lausanne" is all about.  I would respectfully ask that you do not keep deleting our Bible Society.  Fredeee
Apparently, in the questionable logic on the editors, it is alright for us to have a messianic translations...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Bible_translations as long as we don't make a habit of it and produce Yiddish and Hebrew and Russian Bibles (which we are doing) because that would make a not-for-profit organization like ours a Bible Society, and this just cannot be.  The editors show the same mentality as the mail clerks in the prisons of America that gleefully return Bibles and keep the inmates Biblically illiterate.  There is a weirdly evil elation to be had in withholding the Word of God.  Meanwhile, there is no problem with these same editors when it comes to the Yehovah Witnesses and their non-Bible "Bible." (talk) Phil Goble •
:The problem is twofold: 1) that website is sloppy and completely unscholarly.  Please fix it.  2) there is a conflict of interest.  You are trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising tool for a product that needs work.Tim (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I both agree and disagree with Tim. Mr. Goble, I think it's time for you to get used to the fact that Wikipedia is not free advertising space for you to promote your work. It's an obvious conflict of interest for you to repeatedly add links to your website. My disagreement with Tim is this: I don't honestly believe that there's anything that can be done to your site that will make it anything other than a promotional site for your translation/paraphrase, and Wikipedia does not support linking to promotional sites. The only resolution of this consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is for you to stop spamming these links. Jehovah's Witnesses are completely irrlevant to this discussion, since, as far as I know, there are no links to promotional sites for their translation on Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Fredee, this has nothing to do with prejudice against Messianics.  It's a simple fact that the article is about non-partisan Bible societies (which, of course, would exclude the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society for the same reason it excludes yours).  You are right in pointing out that the Watchtower does not belong in the definition.  You are wrong in thinking this somehow allows your own project.  Oh, and for the record, that web site of yours is NOT artistic.  It may not be fixable for Wikipedia standards, but it still needs a lot of work.  At least clean up the typos.Tim (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting. As one who has been an observer of this page for some time, your first and only contribution to Wikipedia is to make personal attacks against editors who have been working to improve Wikipedia by making thousands of contributions. The editors here are not asking you or anyone to take our word for anything. Go to the site. The link is in the history. It plainly fails WP:RS. Furthermore it's a little hard for anyone who has spent more than say, oh, ten minutes editing Wikipedia not to suspect that you're probably Mr. Goble using a new account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Mr. Gobel -- weeks, you say?  I think I popped in here about the time you did (under the Gobel alias).  Or at least it's the first time I paid much attention to the page.  Is your version better than the New World Translation?  Actually, no.  It's more Christian, perhaps -- but it doesn't claim to be, does it?  It claims to be Jewish.  So, then, your version is just as deceptive, and in fact I would argue that it is more so.Tim (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Mr. Better Goble, I didn't put the Jehovah's Witnesses in there.  I took it out, after you pointed it out.  I didn't even pay attention to the page before the issue of your deceptive conversion group came in and you objected to what you perceived to be another deceptive conversion group.  Rather than allow both groups in, I made sure that both groups were removed, since deceptive conversion groups are outside of the scope of an article on non-sectarian Bible societies.  My only point is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are well known, and they freely advertise that they are a separate sect from mainstream Christianity.  In fact, they will insist upon it.  Granted, they are theologically Arian, but in the fourth century MOST of Christianity was theologically Arian, and the Nicene formulation only gained traction through time.  By orthodox Christian standards they are heretics, but at least it is a Christian heresy.  Your own sect is either mainstream Christian theologically (the Trinitarian Messianics) or is a tritheistic heresy (the "Compound Unity" Messianics).  Regardless, whether your sect is a Christian orthodox sect or a Christian heretical sect, it is still a Christian phenomenon.  Judaism has a different historical self definition that does not include New Testament belief.  That doesn't make Messianism wrong.  But it DOES make Messianism DIFFERENT.  That is, if Jesus is the Messiah (however you choose to spell it), then "Orthodox Judaism" is wrong in rejecting him, nu?  Well, then, how (by the normative meaning of the word "Orthodox Judaism") can a Bible containing a New Testament be called the "Orthodox Jewish Bible"?  That's like the New World Translation being labelled the "Roman Catholic Bible."  It isn't, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the decency, and the integrity, of not advertising it as such.  When it comes to deception, then, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is NOT deceptive in comparison to your own sect.  Even if their theology were flat wrong and yours flat right, at least they have the decency to be proud of their own differences and unique identity!  My exclusion of them on this page was not because they are deceptive (as your own sect is), but because they are sectarian (as your sect is also).  That's the basis.  It has nothing to do with their theology, their rightness or wrongness -- it is merely their uniqueness that excludes them.Tim (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, for the last time, I took the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society OFF the page.  I didn't put it on.  I didn't even SEE it before it came up on the talk page.  Take care.Tim (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Mr. Gobel, if you DO want to kibbitz some more, please do it on my talk page so it doesn't keep cluttering this article.  Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artists For Israel Bible Society 

message: ::Catholics traditionally believed that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of the tradition of Catholic Church teachings. [1] This changed at Vatican II which authorised ecumenical Bible translations.
The earlier version of this text, cited in "Catholic section" above, was more accurate.  Ecumenical Bible translations by definition have input from Catholic Bible scholars, i.e. are informed by Catholic tradition.  And Catholics do not believe that ecumenical Bible translations are magically perspicuous unlike non-Catholic translations; just more likely to be accurate on the whole.  That is, even an ecumenical Bible translation can be easily misinterpreted if not read within the context of Catholic tradition. --Jim Henry 17:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misstatement of Catholic belief 

message: it says 
Pope Gregory XVI in his 1844 encyclical Inter Praecipuas condemned both bible societies and "the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures", and subsequently Catholics did not officially participate in the Society. 
But later in the encyclial he says "Because of the continued deceptions of heretics, this rule was further restricted and supplemented by a declaration of Benedict XIV: for the future the only vernacular translations which may be read are those which "are approved by the Apostolic See" or at least were published "with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic authors." so he allows some vernauclar translationst but the article doesnt make it seem that way. There were already translations in the vernacular for example the Doay RheimsIlikerabbits! (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquoting Pope Gregory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bible society. 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/20060703004251/http://www.americanbible.org/site/PageServer to http://www.americanbible.org/site/PageServer
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) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified