Talk:Bible (Wikisource)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

This is really great that this is going on! Would it be possible though in some way to let people know what Greek source it is translated from? Or to set a standard Greek text that everyone will translate from? I imagine each book is done by one person in the beginning--if there is not a standard Greek text could this person mention which text he/she used?--Jdavid2008 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it is being done. Thanks a lot--and sorry for complaining before checking for the facts!--Jdavid2008 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Free translation is the best name for this translation, how about changing it to The Wiki Translation? Does anybody object?--Jdavid2008 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects within a week from March 27, I'll make the move.--Jdavid2008 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts I'm not so sure whats best, and so I'll just leave it. Is anybody else still working on this project?--Jdavid2008 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't disappeared! I have to admit that I lost a little wind but I could get rekindled.
As for your question about source... I use UBS Third Ed. I know that there is a Fourth but at my skill-level I don't think it makes much difference. Do you?
As for the name change. I kind of like "Free Bible". I didn't coin the name but it seems fitting to me. However, I have no problem with Wiki Bible. I think it would be a pain to change.
(BTW, "LiberalGrace" and "cAlan" are both me. Sorry for the confusion. I liked "LiberalGrace" better and think it is more memorable, so I changed it. No intention for deception.) --Liberalgrace 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey LiberalGrace :) As far as I can see you have always mentioned in the "discussions" tab what source texts you used. It seems the person who started Genesis, and the one who started Matthew did not though. As for the name I'm happy with The Free Bible, or something of that sort :) After being used to it I kind of like it too.
Thanks by the way for all your work!!--Jdavid2008 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

This work is being done by a number of people who are translating from various sources. Just as each and every original writer will have a distinctive style, so will translators. I see already that some of the style changes are obvious within a page of text. Eventually I think there ought to be an effort to make things more consistent, but for now I think the styles should be left alone. Sometimes a small change in wording can make a significant theological difference, and each translator is entitled to his/her opinion. Inevitably, some discussions will arise over these wordings, and perhaps the effort to arrive at a true meaning will actually improve the entire work. I would point out that even among Rabbis, there are arguments over the meanings of Old Testament passages. We can hardly expect to agree where they cannot, but we can expect to get more opinions and be more open to discussion. I wish to thank everyone involved with this project. It is an ambitious and extremely useful undertaking! -- Pinkfud (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant with WEB?[edit]

How does this effort compare with the World English Bible? It seems like it is redundant to me. I wonder if the effort would be better spent proofing and updating the WEB. -Amillar 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now, if translators had thought like that, what edition other than the KJV would have gotten done? Amillar, that idea is, simply put, stupid! You need to take a course in logic! Laleena 15:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that idea so stupid, actually rather sensible.
I like the idea of a all new translation myself, and really look forward to how this is going along, but proofing/updating might be nice also. Maybe we should start another project for that? To produce a revision of the WEB. We could correct stylistic problems, and whatever textual errors there are, and also maybe convert it to a more standard text, like the NA27.--Jdavid2008 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard Footnotes?[edit]

Could we adopt another way to do footnotes in WikiProject Bible? I understand that those who put in footnotes have generally used the letter a, b, c, and so on with the Fn tags. However, as the Fn system is very inflexible when adding extra footnotes, and, at least in Genesis, notes are starting to pile up and not link right. I've had no success trying to make them work.

If no one objects within a week, I'm going to change the notes in fontwords to work with the simpler ref tags.

Fontwords 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Already answered over at Genesis :) I switched because other Bible translations used the Fn tag, but have noticed that it really doesn't work for this project. The ref tags sound great.--Jdavid2008 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be here?[edit]

This is a sort of 'original research', to call it so, that would rather fit into Wikibooks, not in Wikisource, where we should place original texts.diego_pmc 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is part of our project scope; see Wikisource:Translations or ... Romance of the Three Kingdoms. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is early days for us to understand what this project will become. I can see two important justifications.
  • Practical justification: creating free content is often better than using free content otherwise available.
  • Ethical justification: the Bible should be free.
I think quality control structures need to be thought through though (woops, never put those words together before).
Sourcing articles at Wikipedia makes them verifiable to anyone. Here though, translation can only be verified by other translators. Alternatively, people can verify against existing translations, but these don't explain how they derived the result, and if people have a translation they can use for comparison, they don't need a free Bible. ;)
Anyway, I'm in for the duration. Love to hear more discussion of the meta-issues. Alastair Haines 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You raise important justifications and concerns, but the key is that it is very early days. I would like to augment your ideas a little to throw the net further.
On the practical side of things, there is so much more to free/wiki content than just the words on the page. Each word has a loving author, who will often answer queries on the talk page, or can be contacted via email. And others will be happy to assist answer queries that are within the capabilities. Even on Wikipedia articles where the content is mostly bedded down, the talk pages are still alive. Even if the best translation possible was freely available, it would still not be a good as developing a living community of translators who are all working as a group to create a translation in full view of the reader. As an example, "[citation needed]" and w:WP:V/w:WP:RS is now a meme of it's own - these scholarly principles have been popularised. In the process of creating and continually revising a translation of the Bible (one of the most oft translated works every written?) in a public forum, the scholarly principles of translation will be popularised in the process.
On the ethical side of things, the result will be not just a free translation, but a living free translation. Currently the free English translations are not easy to comprehend for most readers, and the situation is often worse for non-English translations where new editions are commissioned less frequently. Also the updates to the PD translations are covered by copyright, so it is actually illegal to update them to use what might be the most appropriate wording. With a free translation, it cant be limited in that way, as each revision will be based on a free version so it is provable that it wasnt a copyright violation.
On verifiability, even on Wikipedia there is a difference between verifiable, and verifiable by a dunce without access to a state or research library. On Wikipedia, the process of adding citations that can be checked by other scholars is how trust is built. I trust articles on Wikipedia even though I dont have access to the journal articles mentioned, and even when I cant grasp the concept 100%. In most cases, I simple trust that there are people who review the content. Our free translations can do the same, and better. Not only can the sources be documented, we can increase their accessibility by hosting them on Commons and laying them out nicely on the appropriate Wikisource project (he:, la:, el:). In time, people will trust that our translation is sufficiently reviewed to be worth using. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Wikisource)[edit]

I think "Wikisource" should be the parenthetic, not "Free". it makes it more clear. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the page title, or in the {{header}} ? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Page title. And, by extension, the header too. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That is the more common style in Category:Wikisource translations. Wikisource:Style guide does not mention anything about this situation.
I'll leave a note at Wikisource talk:WikiProject Wiki Bible. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, following lack of response. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've updated {{bible versions}}, and replaced the invocations of {{biblecontents|version=Free}} to {{biblecontents|version=Wikisource}}, which moves the pages from Category:Free Bible books to Category:Wikisource Bible books. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

blank pages[edit]

I have proposed deletion of four empty pages: Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Bible (Wikisource) blank slates. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the number of chapters in the Bible at the beginning of each book[edit]

Issue: I was reading the Samaritan entry at Wikipedia, which led me to want to review certain chapters of the book Deuteronomy. I bumbled through various wikis till I found a list of English Bibles in Wikisource. I chose the Wikisource translation, and clicked Deuteronomy.

Immediately, I was confused. I thought there were more than 9 chapters in this book of the Bible. I confirmed I was correct with the KJV. However, someone not familiar with the Bible might think that Deut only has 9 chapters, esp. if just skimming.

Proposed Solution: List all the chapters at the beginning of each book, with the ones that are not translated at all yet in red links. Also, mention at the top of the book whether or not all of all the chapters have been translated. I thought at first that Chapter 1 was completely translated, but just very small.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your hard work & consideration.

--Geekdiva (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent That sounds like a very good idea. Wonderful. Anyone else have anything to say about that. Arlen22 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Checkmark.svg It is in effect. Arlen22 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apocryphal books[edit]

Sentence in Question:"Many bible scholars consider the Apocrypha as inferior both in quality and content." Has anyone heard of this. 3 people have heard of this.
If you have add 1 to the number. If the number reaches 10 I will add the sentence in question to the end of the description about the Apocrypha. Arlen22 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
If you have any objections please state them. I will add the sentance in question on or after June 20 if no one objects. I will put it on before that if there are 10 votes. Arlen22 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Which translation is this Bible (Wikisource)?[edit]

Is it AKJV? or which one? Which revised edition is used for this (year of latest revision) --FaktneviM (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely new translation by various Wikisource contributors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Is that mean every single biblical book could be from different translation? Is this total anarchy? Which specific translations were used by contributors so far? Could I also publish something for help? --FaktneviM (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The source texts are the various Hebrew and Greek editions available to the contributors. No-one should be using a published English translation or paraphrase. Your assistance would be most welcome, particularly with the redlinks. Pop across to the project page and have a read through there to see what people are up to. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Are those contributors able to translate right from original languages, in particular way, right from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? I thought source is already from some English source. However, I´d like to help, but not sure if I will be capable of translate directly from original biblical languages. In fact, I haven´t direct ingress to source texts in those languages. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Questioning collateral[edit]

Could someone, who is involved by this "Wikisource Bible translation" send here www links or at least names of translations, which they are using for this project?

Where I can find also some indications how fast/slow is working on this translation, what is already done, and what is in schedule. How long should lasts that and how long is already in progress?

I would like also to hear some notice how their translation works progress, their methods, knowledge what they know and what specifically is needed before some wikipedian translator starts doing?

I have much more time these days and I would like to join into with my efforts.

My capabilities in many languages, including English, increasing the level over time. This is another question too. Is there some translator, who use as source for translation work other than one of English editions available? In other words, it will be a problem, if for "FREE BIBLE" = Wikipedia Edition" would be used some French, Spanish, Italian, German, Czech, Russian or any other non-English edition? "Converting" ... Hahaha :) ... from editor´s native language would be better for quality and explanatory value of the resulting text. Not because lack of knowledge in English, but for better understandings nuances of intended meaning and semantics in biblical ways of ideas´ expression. What is your attitude?

Is there any translator, who is using original ancient languages of the Bible like Classical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Koine Greek ? And what about little newer traditional languages such as Old Latin ?

Other languages like Classical Arabic for the Quran and Reformed Egyptian for the Book of Mormon are wholly inappropriate due satan-friendly teachings in them. Of course, not because of those used languages itself.

Well. Little more questions than I originally thought.

Thx for polite answers.

May YOU have peace!

Greetings to everyone.

--FaktneviM (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing Style[edit]

I've been looking at the different books and have seen a great diversity in writing styles. From what I have seen, some are trying to mimic the language of the 1600s while some is using modern 21st century English. I think it might be wise to agree on what type of English we want to use because English has evolved a lot in the past 400 years (example A, the word fear which was used throughout the KJV has evolved from meaning respect and veneration to meaning a phobia or pleasant emotion, which is a colossal difference in meaning)! Personally, I would want to use 21st century English on all the books, because otherwise the King James Version gives a perfect 1600s English version which I have seen poorly mimicked in many books I have read. This makes me feel like we should use 21st century English for all the books including all of the Apocrypha which I haven't seen done yet. We will write better and be better understood. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Stidmatt (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don´t know which biblical text´ sources project´ members are using and if editors involved in this huge and complex work are changing over time or if working is based still with the same persons as when translation project started.
It seems me wise to use only "nowadays language" for "normal people".
On the other hand, using of precise and literal translation is helpful if you want to keep ancient biblical way of sharing ideas.
Converting Creator´s thoughts is not easy for any man. Hard task is even harder, if editors/translators are volunteers, who are not mainly professional translators in ancient languages, but normal people with huge, but still limited knowledge.
I think that the best way is continuing the translation work, regardless if in 16th century language or in nowadays language. Correction could be applied after we finish all the biblical books. Nevertheless, this is one of the well-minded works and most crazy experiments all the time. Look, after we finish, "completely free Bible" will be available for everyone! Not paid for money, but completely freely and by endeavor of volunteers. I like that idea. I´d like to join myself into it too.
What is your opinion about Apocryphas and why do you prefer to translate those books as well? I don´t think those renegades´ writings are useful. Neverless, I respect others´ attitude if someone consider those books as important. Would you like (or rather "Could you") help too? You´re most welcome!
Greetings to all --FaktneviM (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is we should include as many texts that are not traditionally included in Protestant/Catholic versions as we can possibly get hold of, which shouldn't be difficult because we can get people across the world to participate, even (hopefully) get some versions translated that haven't been previously translated into English, if there are any. This opinion is based on my personal research which has led me to believe that the authors of the apocrypha had different ideas then were accepted by the Catholic church a thousand years after they were written and many were used throughout the middle ages (As I have learned while reading on wikipedia about the history of christianity and when the standard selection was selected by the different churches, I have found through the research over 200 books that tell the story of Israel from different angles). People who are skeptical of this claim should read [1] and [2]. I can only get my hands on so many versions, but being a global site we could get people around the world to get many of these books as we can. I would love to help as much as I will be allowed to. It looks like the sections I saw when I published my first post have changed to modern English. I will stick as close to the original meaning and intent as I can as I help add on to this historic task. I will also use modern English. Stidmatt (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's do it! You're very welcome! You could focus translation especially to 'red links' (books, which are not translated so far). I wish you much enthusiasm and perseverance in this. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I have a deep knowledge about development of biblical canon. Hence I respect only inspired books as defined by 'Palestinian Canon' (= 'Protestant Canon'), which includes 66 books and does not share with deuterocanonical books, apocrypha, pseudoepigraphy. This division is used in Judaism and Protestant Christian. Entire Hebrew Canon is finished during 5th Century BCE. Christian Greek Scriptures were finished late 1st Century CE. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gospel_harmony[edit]

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Gospel_harmony_based_on_Matthew

Just granpa (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Serious reservations[edit]

I have serious reservations about this. The Bible is such a huge piece of work (I'm not talking about length of the text), I cannot possibly see how a bunch of voluntary, unknown, unqualified ... in fact do the authors have anything to their names whatsoever? ... "users" can even start to create a new translation of the Bible. I doubt how much of this is really cross-referenced to the many biblical manuscripts, and how much is just an amalgamation of other translations — which in turn poses serious questions as to the accuracy of this translation. The lack of talk page discussion shows how little thought has gone into this translation and how little coordination there is between authors; a close examination will no doubt pick up numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

There already exist numerous academic translations of the Bible that are "free", and even those that aren't have generous quotation limits. With that in mind, I don't know who would ever need or even want to use this translation. You would better spend your time elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Voomie (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The question regarding its purpose is a good one, I must agree. I am very interested in participating myself, having minor qualifications on the Slavonic textual side of translation (wherever that might come in useful). I was wondering also if it was this work's status as a translation that qualified its inclusion in Wikisource. Anything I can do to help, I would appreciate knowing. Thank you! Božidar 16:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Jer. 31:33, "I will put my law in their inward parts." Cpiral (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Good question. My answer is "let death not come to discussion", or better "let discussion live". By "discussion" I mean constructive of the work, but by "work", I mean both the articulation and its discussion.
"...The grass withers and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." (1 Peter 1:24-25) Its no secret that the word of the god translates into the original words, then into versions, then into languages and other paraphrases, but mostly into reverie. Nor is it a secret that the authorship is unknown. (Was it Q?) All the translating entails some less-than-unbiased reporting, but the eternal, unchangeable abstraction "language", as a class containing all remembered words, is not itself biased. Besides I think it is the lord's will that the language of god comprises all the human sensible material forms and definitions that could possibly arise on earth, and that the word of the lord is adapting to that forever, in its own way, because it can, because it dies not.
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:51) It is time for god's children to play, big(space)time. The serious stuff has been done and is a polished jewel, thank god (for money). The children of Jesus' god may have "thoroughly vicious" political techniques, but they are still better than the more gross sinners mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
Warfield has some important points to make:
1) About our editing:
Nobody doubts that wrong readings were current in the second century and it goes but a little way towards showing that a reading is right to show that it was current in the second century. Many of the most serious corruptions which the text of the New Testament has suffered had already entered it in the first half of that century. The matter of importance is not to discover which of the various readings at any given passage chances to appear earliest, by a few years, in the citations of that passage which have happened to be preserved to us in extant writings. It is to determine which of them is a genuine part of the text as it came from its author's hands.
I'll note that the bible scholars seek the writer, not the perfected one—medical researchers are more interested in disease. Many are now cured enough to paraphrase very well. (Plus see W:EXPERTS.)
2) About the dangerous Harnacks to come to these discussion pages:
The method of criticism which is employed by Harnack here—a method with which Hilgenfeld used to vex us and of which Harnack and Bousset and Conybeare seem to have served themselves especially heirs—is, let us say it frankly, thoroughly vicious. Its one effort is at all costs to get behind the total formal transmission, and in the attempt to do this it is tempted to prefer to the direct evidence, however great in mass and conclusive in effect, any small item of indirect evidence which may be unearthed, however weak in its probative force or ambiguous in its bearing. The fundamental principle of this method of criticism naturally does not commend itself to those who have made the criticism of texts their business. Even an Eduard Norden sounds a salutary warning against it, and the professional critics of the New Testament text reject it with instructive unanimity.
I think Warfield is discouraging people from digesting the rough old discussions, and instead to conceive in the more excellently polished ones as sources for the endless and ubiquitous exegesis of Jesus. But "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19)
A few more interesting facts about interpretations:
  • The Living Bible is a paraphrase, mere thoughts, not direct, Greek, translation.
  • The King James Version of our 17th century (a compilation of translations) is still the most used, yet it came mostly from Tyndale, a man who was literally burned at the stake for "untrue translations". (Preface to the RSV)
  • There are probably thousands of bible translations, many of which will include extra articles "of doubtful authenticity".
Let there be lightning. And will the last words turn out the lights?
Cpiral (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)