Talk:English translations of the Bible

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Ok, how do we change the Main Title? When I click NET it takes me to the info on the New English Translation (which is correct) however at the top of the page it says New Evangelical Translation....How can we change it from New Evanglical translation (which is out of print and not used by anyone I know) to New English translation? Forgive me I'm still new to the WIKI type format. JenniferDent 08:28, 10 November 2005 (EST)

I deleted the "New Evangelical Transl" page. I think it's all fixed now. FYI, you can't retitle per se, but you can "move" the content of a page to a "new" page (specifying the desired title). This leaves the "old" page with a built in REDIRECT function so you don't lose pre-existing links. This should be done sparingly and with care for the links. :-) Gomarus 09:15, 10 November 2005 (EST)

You're wonderful Gomarus :^) Thanks for the fix. (I'm not planning on moving anything lol I'll let you tech type guys who have a clue do it, safer that way JenniferDent 11:24, 10 November 2005 (EST)


Hey there Jordan, I have a question concerning the following statement you made: The NASB and ESV are currently considered to be the most word for word translations, the CEV and NLT are the most thought for thought translations. Considered by whom? Who considers these 2 to "be the most word for word translation" :^) I know I'm a pain what can I say, phrases like "they say" and "you know who" make me wonder lol 11:35, 10 November 2005 (EST)

There is room for improvement of the opening paragraph. E.g. it mentions CEV which is not even listed. And I agree with Jennifer, that such leading statements could benefit from a reference citation or link. Gomarus 11:46, 10 November 2005 (EST)
That's cool. I simply copied it over from another page that I deleted, and I should have read it more closely before I did. I'll delete it for now, and we can come back to it and change stuff around if we choose to later. JordanBarrett 11:59, 10 November 2005 (EST)

Major Revision

Thoughts? - HokieRNB 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that looks really good. JordanBarrett (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the final draft. Did I miss any translations that we need articles on? - HokieRNB 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "the" really part of "The Jerusalem Bible"? I know we try and avoid "the" in the titles of articles, so I'm just checking. JordanBarrett (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts include the "the", but I removed it for the sake of consistency. - HokieRNB 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You may also add in the New Century Version. In my personal experience I've seen it becoming more popular. JordanBarrett (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. - HokieRNB 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Are the guys listed in the right column really principal editors? It seems that "Translation committee chairman" might be more appropriate, but I'm just guessing. Jim, . . . Gomarus
Jim - that's probably more accurate in many of the cases, but I was trying to come up with a generic term for the guy whose name heads the list of editors. The problem is they all have different titles: President of the General Committee (Schaff), General Director (Dodd), Executive Secretary (Palmer), Executive Editor (Farstad), General Editor (Metzger), to name a few. My assumption is that as the leader of each respective team of translators, though their hands may not have been active in the process, their editorial input would have been valued. I'm not entirely opposed to striking the column completely. - HokieRNB 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it "as is" for now. It's no biggie as far as I'm concerned. I understood what you were getting at. Jim, . . . Gomarus 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The former list:

Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:English_translations_of_the_Bible"
Personal tools