Talk:The Passion Translation

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gotquestions

That author is a nobody who writes for a user-generated website. At least if he would represent the Southern Baptist Church, he would be quoted on behalf of Southern Baptists. But as such, he is an authority in nothing and he represents nobody.

See Talk:Jesus/Archive 127#Cause of death = pericardial effusion + pleural effusion.

As you perhaps know, Christians are not allowed to tell lies, so an explicitly non-denominational website cannot speak on behalf of the Baptist Church. As long as they wear the non-denominational hat, they may represent no church and they do not speak for any church. It's heresy that a bunch of non-denominational Christians would represent the Baptist Church.

You're violating a guideline, gotquestions isn't WP:RS and should not be used.

... and, it wasn't unexplained. The explanation was WP:SPS, you might want to read it.

Gotquestions is not affiliated with a church, so they represent no church, they speak for no church, they speak for nobody in particular. So it even fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

It is a self-published site written by a bunch of amateurs. Where did they got their PhD, ThD, or DD? In a box of crackerjacks?

Rumor has it that they are Baptists. But they claim no formal affiliation with the Baptist Church, so they may not speak on behalf the Baptist Church. They cannot be WP:CITED for the viewpoints of the Baptist Church, since they don't have the credentials of publicly representing it.

Press statements by Ed Litton may be quoted to WP:Verify the POVs of the Baptist Church, but gotquestions is useless as a source for Wikipedia.

What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations.

And, correct me if I am wrong, gotquestions are a bunch of anonymous amateur theologians. That completely fails the WP:RS guideline. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. CanO27sprite (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More books

Lead sentence says "The Passion Translation (TPT) is a modern, paraphrase English translation of the New Testament, and of Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Song of Solomon from the Hebrew Bible." But i've seen lots more books available in TPT, including Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezekiel and Daniel. Kidburla (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in reviews etc

There seems to be significant pro-TPT bias in the "reviews" section and elsewhere... in what I've seen, popular opinion of this translation is generally negative, yet this article only points out positive reviews. Anyways, Wikipedia is not a site for promoting a book you like: WP:SOAPBOX and is not a place to store a bunch of reviews: WP:NOTPRICE NorthropChicken (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what is meant by this?

"He concludes by stating that while TPT is not necessarily bad, it should not be regarded as scripture."

this is incredibly vague. what do we mean by "bad" here? what is meant by 'not scripture'? Meikkon (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]