Talk:Modern English Bible translations

Use of password protect source

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)

Relative merits of translations - sources?

Back when I used to read Christian books (in the 90's) I noticed that more intelligent, scholarly writers tend to quote from the NRSV. From personal use, and what amateur research and comparison I could do with original languages, concordances and so forth, I found the NRSV vastly superior to the KJV and NIV. The NIV, in particular, often gave what I consider misleading translations - where the original text was at all ambiguous, the NIV gave a translation which was consistent with mainstream 20th century Christian teaching.

One case is that "the sharing of your faith" (Philemon 6) is assumed in the NIV to refer to evangelism, rather than some other meaning of fellowship (the same Greek work, koinonia, is used for sharing as for fellowship).

Okay, so my view is subjective. But has a credible study been done on this which could be referenced in this article? I expect that more than one POV will need to be presented (e.g. the claims that the KJV is more reverent, that the KJV & NKJV use better texts and are more literal and thus more reliable... not my views btw), but that's no problem. --Singkong2005 12:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Reverent" is, of course, a subjective quality. Shakespearian English does not necessarily mean more reverent. By the same token, a more literal translation does not mean that the translation is more semantically accurate.

As someone who has studied the Bible and Biblical languages at the doctoral level, I've come to the conclusion that serious Christians would do well to learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. Failing that, however, one should have at least a few translations on their shelf, and compare passages for deviations. This should twig the reader to areas of ideology or ambiguity in translation, the two biggest pitfalls in the enterprise. I'd suggest the NRSV, NIV, NASB, KJV, REB, and the NJB. In essence, there is no single "best" translation, imo, just as there is no single, best translation philosophy. All have their strengths and weaknesses, although there is such a thing as taking too many liberties with the text (e.g., The Good News Bible or The Message).

For my part, I use the NRSV as my standard reference Bible, being aware that they have anachronistically edited the text for gender neutrality. Fishhead64 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re the NRSV's anachronistic editing of the text for gender neutrality - yes, it's good to be aware of this (and such changes are always footnoted, so an observant reader will be aware). I think it's a good translation method though. The original language uses male pronouns as the default, as did English up until the last few decades. Current English usage is to not do this, but to say something like "he or she." It's also worth noting that pronouns referring to specific individuals - human or other - retain the gender of the original text.

Of course, if it was being translated into a language which doesn't have gender specific pronouns (such as Indonesian or Chinese) there would be little choice in the matter. And it's hard to say that it causes a problem, in my view. --Singkong2005 ^talk 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Table form

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)

I would fully support the clean-up of the table, specifically:

• I suggest simply that the fe/de column is removed (I would like to see a single page which compares from top to bottom fe and de translations).
• I suggest that a wikitable structure is used for the table(see for example The Word on the Street)

If you agree to these changes, then I would just go for it.

As some further suggestions, I would like to see, for EACH Bible translation, a template structure (rather like the one used for footballers, e.g. Peter Schmeichel), which contains the following info:

• Translation Name (e.g. Good News Bible)
• Abbreviation (e.g. GNB)
• Date of NT (e.g. 1970), OT (e.g. 1976), full Bible (e.g. 1976)
• Author(s): "Committee made up of Foreign Bible Society members.."
• Textual basis: e.g. The Septuagint, KJV
• Copies printed: 25 million
• Gen 1:1 example
• John 3:16 example

I would also like to see, for EACH Bible translation, a template structure to track the history, with a "left" box pointing to previous translation(s), and a "right" box pointing to following translations.

Brusselsshrek 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean a template structure to be used within the article on modern versions, or within the individual article on the translation (or both)? I think it is a good idea, but I would strongly lean towards it being individualized, i.e. not just one giant chart for all translations together, but rather a template containing basic information for a single translation. This would, once again, allow for non-standard information being added afterwords in text form, when appropriate.

I would also add to the info you list above to be contained within the template the following:

• Does it include apocrypha (and if so exactly what books)?
• Denomination (where appropriate).
• Available online?
• License (if there are any public domain or copyleft).

If a lot of serious information is included, there is no reason not to also add the fe/de distinction too, especially for those translations that consciously follow one method or the other. Dovi 10:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I always thought of it as being individualised (i.e. KJV has it's own one on its page all about KJV, RSV has one all about it on its page etc.). All your suggestions are great. Another one I forgot to add in (which will also help to support deleting the column from the general table:

• Translation type (literal, fe, de, paraphrase, etc.)

Brusselsshrek 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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? {{BibleTranslation}}? Brusselsshrek 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need is an Infobox. Gotta do some wiki research on how on earth to do one of these gadgets... Brusselsshrek 14:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

In fact, see Template:Bible translation infobox for the current raw definition and the talk page Template_talk:Bible translation infobox for examples of usage (beware - they don't always use the latest syntax!!) Brusselsshrek 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible in Living English

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)

Thanks for nothing. I stuck it in there. Hopefully it's in the right place. RJII 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone add The Voice under the New Testament category? ISBN 1418534390, 9781418534394 k_keith

Miscellaneous

Shouldn't the ESV be listed among the ASV lineage? See English_Standard_Version:"First and foremost, the ESV is an update of the Revised Standard Version (RSV)".

Open Source modern English translations

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)

Try out New English Translation - free, modern, electronically-available, (theoretically) unbiased. Brusselsshrek 10:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Does this fit? (UPDV)

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[1] 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)

Lorimer

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)

LDS section

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.[2] 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)

Except that LDS is outside of Chr-stianity, and belongs elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.242.132 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim English translation of Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)?

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)

Too Much Credit to The Living Bible?

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)

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))

Paring down the list

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)

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))

Problem with Partial Translations List

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)

You were missing a | just before the last } (Taivo (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks!EGMichaels (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic Equivalent vs Paraphrase

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)

Works in Progress

Works in progress are not acceptable entries. There is no assurance they will come to publication, and Wikipedia policy is not to include anticipated future events unless they are (nearly) certain to occur. WP:Crystal Ball. --Blainster (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Unpublished works may still be notable" if they meet basic criteria for notability. See "Forthcoming Publications" on Notability page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28published_works%29. The fact that something has not been published is, therefore, not grounds on which to dismiss an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.182.232 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A basic pillar of Wikipedia is neutrality, which is largely determined by verifiability. In order for content to be included, it must be supported by sources, and in order to determine if content is significant enough to include, it should have reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. I've removed many of the entries which lacked either articles or secondary sources. I've also removed Restored Holy Bible, which I proposed for deletion because it lacks any secondary sources or indication that in meets WP:NB. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bible Reader's Museum appears to be a single person's website. As such it's WP:SPS, and is not reliable as a source. Additionally, it's mostly just passing mentions and links to primary sources, and wouldn't be usable to establish notability anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What should we do with translation that were listed as "in progress" if they have already published a portion? Should we cite the portion that has been publish, and not refer to plans to publish more? Pete unseth (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it should be based on WP:V. I would say that if a reliable, secondary source based on scholarship or news (no press releases, and no e-commerce site listing) cannot be found, the translations shouldn't be included. I think that should apply to old translations as well as in progress ones. That may be a high standard, but write the article first makes a compelling case for limiting redlinks in list articles. Right now the article is kind of a mess. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we should not refer to any translation as "in progress" unless verified by 3rd party. Sounds good to me. But I still think we can cite portions if they have been published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2015‎

I think you may have typed your comments in the edit summary by mistake. I agree, I don't really think being in progress is all that important for inclusion or exclusion, rather it's a red flag that a translation needs a good source. I don't have any problem with including an in-progress, or an incomplete version that has a referenced article, or that has solid sources. I would like for the sources to be a bit better than just a listing mentioning that a translation project was started with no further info. Other than that, the threshold is open to debate. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There remain a number of in-progress listings that are non-notable. I removed the description of the former "Free Bible" Wikisource project already removed from the table. It was renamed to Wiki Bible project in 2009 and the Wp article was deleted shortly thereafter for non-notability. The Bible (Wikisource) project remains but appears to be moribound. I also removed the description of the "heavenly fire" Bible after you deleted it from the table. (Not sure why the interwiki links I tried don't seem to be working.) Blainster (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This page includes a number of translations that seem to be just sourced to the website that's selling the translation. While there's something to be said for a "complete" list, in an era of print-on-demand books, it's really easy for anyone to take an existing translation in the public domain, change around some words and replace some thees & thous, and have a new translation. I suggest that this list be limited to translations significant enough to have Wikipedia articles (blue links) and translations that are referenced to at least one secondary source discussing the translation - i.e. not from the publisher, not from an individual church / group that commissioned the translation. Any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I admit that there are some idiosyncratic translations included in this article. But in my mind, that is one of its strengths. That is, I can come to this article and easily find links to many such translations. This article is a bit more helpful than a list, but it should not become a list of only translations that have their own articles. I strongly request that it remain open to all translations, even if some may have little impact and not gain much recognition. Willing to listen to others, Pete unseth (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing "only blue links" above; I'm advocating "only blue links and translations with secondary sources discussing them." Basically, a criteria like that will catch significant translations, but a random pastor somewhere posting his own version of the KJV to his church's website wouldn't be.

I think the applicable policies are WP:LISTCRIT and the common selection criteria beneath them. I think translations are too common, especially in the Internet era, to qualify for the "comprehensive list" case - it'd be closer to the "List of Norwegian musicians" example that included every garage band. That said, some secondary notice, any secondary notice, should be a very achievable goal. I'd be fine with tagging minor translations lacking both bluelinks nor secondary references with Template:Secondary source needed if that would help, and letting them sit for ~6 months to see if anyone wants to find or add one. SnowFire (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Spanish translation?

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)