Talk:History of the English Bible

This needs serious work...but more importantly, it is from this web site (http://tanaya.net/Books/sokjv10/). They claim to offer the book free, but do not appear to be releasing it under the GFDL. Do we put up the possible copyright infringement boilerplate? Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See also comments on Wikipedia:cleanup seglea 00:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If the book is in fact from 1912, we do not need their permission. I've gone through and added some very rough sectional headings, and some basic links. Much of the information here is already in the series of articles about individual translations. Alfred's translations need to be added, as well as perhaps Wulfila's. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've added another heading to get the ToC into view, and put a heading on the critique at the end so it shows in the ToC. I have also tried to be more specific about the nature of the source's partiality, and changed the header note so it's clear that Wikipedia may now get to work and change this text to something more useful. seglea 02:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 A Very Interesting Idea! 2 factual dispute temp added 3 Minor thing 4 NPOV 5 Wow, this article is problematic

A Very Interesting Idea!

I have wanted to do this for months now. English Bible Translations is a topic I have been obsessed with for almost ten years now. Here's my idea for an outline

Pre-English Versions: Includes LXX, Vulgate, Heb [read: Ben Chayim, Kittel, BHS] & Gk [read TR, M-Text, N-A, UBS] - to 830 CE

Early English Versions: Includes Bede, caedmon, Alfred the Great, Tyndale, Matthews, Great, Coverdale, Bishop's, Wycliffe. - 830 CE to 1611 CE

The King James Version: This should be self-explanatory. - 1611 CE

From the King James Version to the Revisers Includes Young, Webster, JST, LO, Darby 1611 CE-1881 CE

The Revisions of 1885 and 1901: This should be self-explanatory. 1881 CE-1901 CE

From the Revisers to the Revised Standard Version: Includes Weymouth, 20th Cent. NT, Goodspeed, Moffatt, JPS, Philips - 1901 CE to 1952 CD

The Revised Standard Version: This should be self-explanatory. 1952 CE

'From the Revised Standard Version to the New International Version': Includes: NEB, LBP, NAB, JB, AMP, NASB, GNT, NWT. - 1952 CE to 1978 CE

The New International Version: This should be self-explanatory. 1978 CE

'Beyond the New International Version: Includes NKJV, NJB, CEV, NCV, NRSV, REB, Message, NLT, NIVI, NIrV, ESV, TNIV, HCSB. - 1978 CE to 2004 CE

This is a very rough outline. Let's make this article happen! - iHoshie 09:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

The Old English translations page already contains many of those you mention in Early English Versions, the others could perhaps be summarized in a Middle English translations page (which could be added to the table) Rmhermen 16:29, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Presently our discussion of Middle English versions is limited to an article on John Wyclyff and vague mentions of Nicholas of Hereford, John Purvey, Richard Rolle, the Matthew's Bible, West Midland Psalter, the Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, the Book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles -none of which present any detail but at least could give us a place to start. Rmhermen 18:36, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

You have made some good points. Sadly, my knowledge of Versions before the KJV is limited. I have done more reading into versions done from the Revisers to present. - iHoshie 22:08, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that the most important additions needed are articles about the New English Bible of 1960 and the Revised English Bible based on it. These are both controlled by the Univeristy Presses in England. Rlquall 22:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The entire text is highly biased. It sounds more like the speach of a preacher infront of mass. And writing "our King James Version" is also totally false, and is not mine.

194.76.232.147 08:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

factual dispute temp added

I have decided to add the {{Disputed}} template to the article since this article still has some incorrect statements that McAfee wrote. Comments? - iHoshie 04:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor thing

One comment that probably has little to do with the beef of this article: Elizabeth I was actually a very devoted Protestant, who had studied the works of Philip Melanchton (Luther's successor) deeply. --L. 15:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Phrases such as "our king james version" lead one to believe that this article is written from the POV of a Christian. --Morningstar2651 14:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this article is problematic

Shouldn't this article, well, continue after the KJV? To be honest, the whole text should probably be scrapped and replaced...why do people think it's okay to use century old books for discussions of things that have histories beyond a century ago? john k 22:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible. It's a direct copy from a highly POV website. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)