Talk:The Living Bible

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Living Bible article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Criticism Section?

The living Bible was not universally accepted, and was widely criticized by many people. Here's just one viewpoint: http://www.bible-researcher.com/lbp.html

I think this article is highly lacking in balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.46.127 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self published website. Drawing criticism from it is questionable. No printed work is universally accepted so I don't see how that criticism is even warranted. Basileias (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a translation of the Bible by someone who didn't have much Hebrew or Greek, and more importantly is accused of very heavy Arminian bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.66.145 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted passages

There were edits changing the label for certain passages from being "notable" to "prominent". Editor Unscintillating was part of this. I added material to the second of these two passages, showing how Living Bible differed from other translations, citing actual translations. Since then, editor Unscintillating has deleted this paragraph, citing "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Previously the editor was fine with it. I am not sure what to do. Should the status quo be maintained (with the heading "Prominent passages" over only one passage)? Should the deleted paragraph be restored? Should the heading and its contents be removed? Should the header be relabeled? Other ideas? Willing to live with consensus.Pete unseth (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought up multiple issues in one discussion thread, including a claim that you know what I think in one case. I'm clearing two or three of your talking points by restoring a stable version of the article, one that was stable for over 3 1/2 months. The full edit comment being contended is, "See WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This must also meet WP:DUE." As for consensus, it is not necessary to build consensus for our WP:V verifiability policy and WP:NPOV policy, as they already have community consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to do any mind reading. My questions have to do with whether these two passages deserve discussion, and if so what should be said. I wanted to call attention to the fact that one of the two was deleted. Actually, I find these two paragraphs are being given undue emphasis in the overall article. In terms of verifiability, verification of what: whether these passages are controversial or whether the translations are correct? Trying to make the article better, not push any personal agenda here.Pete unseth (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, one of the two was not deleted. There has not been consensus to add the paragraph. The fact that one can use the LB as a primary source would at most source one sentence of that section, and would be using Wikipedia's voice to assert that the passage was "notable". What sources say that it is notable? Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled over that last paragraph and was surprised at the headline "Notable passages". I am sorry to say this, but the discussion over "notable" vs. "prominent" seems absolutely ridiculous to me. The content of this paragraph is, at best, described by the word "trivia". This bathroom anecdote is a nice little anecdote, and that's that. I can only hope that this is not the most notable passage in that bible. --91.34.40.25 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]