![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the List of Bible translators page were merged into List of Bible translations by language. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
In the section on Hawaiian, I have changed:
to:
Otherwise, it sounds like the (newer) Hawaiian Pidgin translation and the (older) Hawaiian translation are two versions in the same language, which they are not. Hawaiian Pidgin is spoken by perhaps the majority of locally born inhabitants of Hawaii today; it is an English-based pidgin. Hawaiian is a Polynesian language, the original language of the Hawaiian islands, now spoken by a small minority of the population and an endangered language undergoing (important) revival efforts. I will try to place quotes from both language versions in the article; that should make the point much clearer! -- A R King 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article List of Bible translators contains much information that belongs here, and vice versa. Perhaps both articles should continue to exist, but material should be distributed between the articles in a systematic fashion, to avoid redundancy on the one hand, and unmerited gaps on the other (for example, no entry for Danish translations).-- woggly 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like my suggestion didn't provoke much response, neither for or against. Since there is currently no opposition, I'll wait another day, and if no one objects I'll move this article to Bible translations by language.
Afterwards, the List of Bible translators can be made an appendix to this article or left on its own. Either way, it really should be put into a sortable table as suggested above. Dovi 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Another, related, suggestion. This article is extremely long. Yet structurally it is simply a table of contents "Contents (by language)" which is itself an index into multiple, independent, per-language sections. I suggest that each per-language section become (be promoted to) an article in its own right: "Bible translations (Afrikaans)", etc. Then, when that is done, the List of Bible translators article can be merged, language by language, into the corresponding new "Bible translations (language)" article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Doing this would be a big task, but we can probably do it bit by bit. I suggest that we start with the languages that are already done, such as those mentioned above by Malik Shabazz:
That would establish the principle with known cases and provide the opportunity for refinements and adjustments. If that goes well, we can then work through the other languages (in their cases, copying the material to a new, per-language article). It might also be prudent to place an HTML comment in the "Contents (by language)" explaining to other editors what is happening. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's about it. This article would become much smaller, as more-or-less a table-of-contents (list of languages) section, where each language then clicks to its own article. A few "stub" languages may remain in this article, but any expansion of a stub should lead to its becoming an article in its own right. Doubtless there will be some grey areas and fuzzy edges, but let not that distract us from exploring the general idea. (There will also be the WP:GFDL administrative issue about preserving the edit history of sections that become articles) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged List of Bible translators into this article. I agree that this should be a list-type article; a complete discussion of all translations is far too large of topic to cover in a single article. If the goal of this article is simplification to eventually get to a list, then I suggest we change the name back to List of Bible translations. There are also some formatting issues with this article; it looks different than nearly all other Wikipedia articles. I will open a request for comment once the merge is cleaned up; I think some opinions from experienced editors will be helpful in improving this article. Jminthorne ( talk) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
When I edited this article to reformat the tables, I removed the copious amount of year-linking (e.g. 2007) that I found, but some of it has been replaced. As per WP:MS Overlinking and underlinking, please refrain from linking to years unless you feel it's absolutely necessary or relevant to the context.
I also removed a lot of red links; perhaps some of them should have been left, but I felt there were far too many and they didn't seem to be too relevant. I won't remove any more red links unless it becomes a problem again, but following WP:Red links, please make sure that anything you redlink is actually notable enough to warrant an entire article.
Thanks. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I get the distinct impression that there is slight judgmental Point Of View in the "Venus Latina" section: [quote] "They were never rendered independently from the Hebrew or Greek; they vary widely in readability and quality, and contain many solecisms in idiom, some by the translators themselves, others from literally translating Greek language idioms into Latin...All of these translations were made obsolete by St. Jerome's Vulgate [/quote] Were made obsolete? Although in modern times there much value placed on having translations independent of the Greek Septuagint, and it seems fitting to describe the motivations for replacing the piecemeal translations-- these translations are a historical artifact and presently only studied as such. In the article here, it sounds like a recommendation is being made against them. For instance, in what sense were they "obsolete?" Historically speaking, because of the limitations of trade, scarceness of paper and scribes, literacy rate, etc., St. Jerome's was not universally available. It also is not clear here if St Jerome's was specifically endorsed by the Pope or other Catholic authorities, or if a declaration was made against previous translations. Just a little historical context would helpful here Cuvtixo ( talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is appropriate to add that Vision 2025 is experimenting with OLPC computers, for Bible Translations. (This was covered at BibleTech 2008.) I thought the speaker said that if the pilot is successful, they will be able to start work on every language by 2020, if funding is available. I can't find that comment in the audio files that are available. :( jonathon ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing information about important translations of the Bible in the Coptic, and Ge`ez languages. There is also a very ancient partial translation in sankrit.
The Article at times does a good job of showing which Bibles are Catholic, Orthodox and `quasichristian` protestant translations but is some cases, it is not so clear. This is a very important issue for readers of the article and I ask that you endevear to put accurate information on all Bible translations showing which group of Christians it belongs to. Let us face the truth in this, Catholics do not trust protestants at all when it comes to the Bible nor should we after they threw out seven books. I know that protestants and Orthodox do not trust Catholics, though I consider this just a blind prejudice. In any event, every version of the Bible listed here needs to be marked as a Catholic, protestant or Orthodox.
In Japan the early version of the Bible actually has been preserved. It is called the Mitedake. It is written entirely in Katakana characters and is not meant to be read aloud but only to be looked at. There are several of these still in existance and are kept by Japanese Catholics in Japan. These Bibles were used during the time when Christianity was illigal in Japan. Most of them are very old, some almost 500 years old. They are written on sheets of cloth that are meant to be rolled up or layed flat in a box for storage. They are considered an important treasure by the Catholic Church in Japan and though they are no longer used, the families that own them hold a kind of special prestige among the Catholic faithful here as proof of their 500 years of the family being Catholic and surviving the pursecution. Several of these Mitedake Bibles were recently studied and the Japanese Chanel NHK did a 2 hour report about the Hidden Christians that included information about these Bibles and video of the families and the Bibles were shown on Japanese TV. One of these Bibles was destroyed during the reign of Meiji my Samurai in Tsuwano Japan as a form of torture, since the Catholics who used it in secret for 300 years were forced to watch it burn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 ( talk) 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the phrase "but it was still considered quite difficult to understand for the average Zulu person." It has had a "cite needed" tag since November 2007. I seriously doubt that it is any more difficult to read for a native user of Zulu, than the KJV is for a native user of English. I don't know which edition of the Zulu Bible I have, but it isn't any more difficult for me to read, than Illanga ( http://www.ilanganews.co.za/) is.
The sentence "Work on the Old Testament is in progress, and should be completed around 2016." was deleted, because the article at http://www.biblesociety.org/wr_329/329_26.htm implies that it has been completed. What I can't tell is if the 1986 date is for the "new" Zulu orthography, or if it is a brand new translation. The South African Bible Society website doesn't clarify the issue. jonathon ( talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Modern Greek is in bad english ("revisioned" etc.) and besides sounds rather mixed up and generally uninformative. I suspect this could do with a great deal of tidying up (better: rewriting from scratch?) but don't have the expertise (or time) to do that myself, so I'm just asking for someone out there with the ability to attend to this if possible. For one thing, As far as I know the Vamvas translation was written in the mid-nineteenth century and therefore it is misleading to mention this AFTER a 1901 edition (of what? which translation?) has been introduced in the text. Altogether, could we have some reliable facts and a clear exposition? Thanks. Alan -- A R King ( talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have requested comments on WP:FEED. Below is my request:
I just (roughly) completed a merge on this page, and it still needs a significant amount of editing to maintain its B class. Before I start on the detailing though, I would appreciate some high level perspective on the goals and format of this article. Specifically:
Recently, two users have deleted a fair amount of text. I don't understand why. Would somebody please explain the logic for this. Should these be reversed? Pete unseth ( talk) 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Note to editors Following discussion on the 'Talk' page in June 2008, it is intended to split this article into separate articles, one per language, usually called "Bible translations (Language)" (substitute 'Language'). Eventually this article will reduce towards a list of pointers to such articles. 1. Starting a new language? Could you do so at such a page, please? The only change you would make to this page would be in the index immediately following. See, for instance, "Bible translations (Apache)". 2. Editing an existing language? Could you consider splitting it out into a separate article? Thanks.
The Revised Korean Version is called in my Korean Bible Korean Revised Version. Shall we change the present name? AurinKo ( talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There many places here where it says "Main article - translations of Bible into Language X" but then the link is in red, indicating that Wikipedia does not have an article with that title. Can some one please remove these misleading references to articles that are not in Wikipedia? For example, there is a sub-heading "Translations of the Bible into Xhosa" and then it says "Main article - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but Wikipedia does not have an article of that name. I agree it is of interest to know that the whole Bible has been translated into Xhosa, but unless Wikipedia actually did have an article on the subject, we do not really need to put in the misleading red link. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you - I just thought I had better raise the issue here first, just in case there had been articles on those at one time which got deleted, or to find out whether any one had any objections to my suggestion. Thank you for your help,
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning here that the Bible has been translated into Klingon? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Quenya has been broken out to Bible translations into fictional languages. If there's a WP:RS then please feel free to add. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The German translations are missing AurinKo ( talk) 02:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a complete reorganization. Editor2020 ( talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Should not the title of this article be a List of Bible translations by language? That would be more in keeping with Wikipedia convention. Peaceray ( talk) 08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Finished. Good to go to list format. Who will do that? In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was searching for a list of languages by date they were translated into the bible. The present format of this article makes it very difficult to gather this information. I was hoping for something similar to wikipedia article of List of languages by first written accounts. 66.81.29.56 ( talk) 16:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Are Karen & Kareni really two different languages? Pete unseth ( talk) 12:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the List of Bible translators page were merged into List of Bible translations by language. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
In the section on Hawaiian, I have changed:
to:
Otherwise, it sounds like the (newer) Hawaiian Pidgin translation and the (older) Hawaiian translation are two versions in the same language, which they are not. Hawaiian Pidgin is spoken by perhaps the majority of locally born inhabitants of Hawaii today; it is an English-based pidgin. Hawaiian is a Polynesian language, the original language of the Hawaiian islands, now spoken by a small minority of the population and an endangered language undergoing (important) revival efforts. I will try to place quotes from both language versions in the article; that should make the point much clearer! -- A R King 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article List of Bible translators contains much information that belongs here, and vice versa. Perhaps both articles should continue to exist, but material should be distributed between the articles in a systematic fashion, to avoid redundancy on the one hand, and unmerited gaps on the other (for example, no entry for Danish translations).-- woggly 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like my suggestion didn't provoke much response, neither for or against. Since there is currently no opposition, I'll wait another day, and if no one objects I'll move this article to Bible translations by language.
Afterwards, the List of Bible translators can be made an appendix to this article or left on its own. Either way, it really should be put into a sortable table as suggested above. Dovi 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Another, related, suggestion. This article is extremely long. Yet structurally it is simply a table of contents "Contents (by language)" which is itself an index into multiple, independent, per-language sections. I suggest that each per-language section become (be promoted to) an article in its own right: "Bible translations (Afrikaans)", etc. Then, when that is done, the List of Bible translators article can be merged, language by language, into the corresponding new "Bible translations (language)" article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Doing this would be a big task, but we can probably do it bit by bit. I suggest that we start with the languages that are already done, such as those mentioned above by Malik Shabazz:
That would establish the principle with known cases and provide the opportunity for refinements and adjustments. If that goes well, we can then work through the other languages (in their cases, copying the material to a new, per-language article). It might also be prudent to place an HTML comment in the "Contents (by language)" explaining to other editors what is happening. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's about it. This article would become much smaller, as more-or-less a table-of-contents (list of languages) section, where each language then clicks to its own article. A few "stub" languages may remain in this article, but any expansion of a stub should lead to its becoming an article in its own right. Doubtless there will be some grey areas and fuzzy edges, but let not that distract us from exploring the general idea. (There will also be the WP:GFDL administrative issue about preserving the edit history of sections that become articles) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged List of Bible translators into this article. I agree that this should be a list-type article; a complete discussion of all translations is far too large of topic to cover in a single article. If the goal of this article is simplification to eventually get to a list, then I suggest we change the name back to List of Bible translations. There are also some formatting issues with this article; it looks different than nearly all other Wikipedia articles. I will open a request for comment once the merge is cleaned up; I think some opinions from experienced editors will be helpful in improving this article. Jminthorne ( talk) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
When I edited this article to reformat the tables, I removed the copious amount of year-linking (e.g. 2007) that I found, but some of it has been replaced. As per WP:MS Overlinking and underlinking, please refrain from linking to years unless you feel it's absolutely necessary or relevant to the context.
I also removed a lot of red links; perhaps some of them should have been left, but I felt there were far too many and they didn't seem to be too relevant. I won't remove any more red links unless it becomes a problem again, but following WP:Red links, please make sure that anything you redlink is actually notable enough to warrant an entire article.
Thanks. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I get the distinct impression that there is slight judgmental Point Of View in the "Venus Latina" section: [quote] "They were never rendered independently from the Hebrew or Greek; they vary widely in readability and quality, and contain many solecisms in idiom, some by the translators themselves, others from literally translating Greek language idioms into Latin...All of these translations were made obsolete by St. Jerome's Vulgate [/quote] Were made obsolete? Although in modern times there much value placed on having translations independent of the Greek Septuagint, and it seems fitting to describe the motivations for replacing the piecemeal translations-- these translations are a historical artifact and presently only studied as such. In the article here, it sounds like a recommendation is being made against them. For instance, in what sense were they "obsolete?" Historically speaking, because of the limitations of trade, scarceness of paper and scribes, literacy rate, etc., St. Jerome's was not universally available. It also is not clear here if St Jerome's was specifically endorsed by the Pope or other Catholic authorities, or if a declaration was made against previous translations. Just a little historical context would helpful here Cuvtixo ( talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is appropriate to add that Vision 2025 is experimenting with OLPC computers, for Bible Translations. (This was covered at BibleTech 2008.) I thought the speaker said that if the pilot is successful, they will be able to start work on every language by 2020, if funding is available. I can't find that comment in the audio files that are available. :( jonathon ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing information about important translations of the Bible in the Coptic, and Ge`ez languages. There is also a very ancient partial translation in sankrit.
The Article at times does a good job of showing which Bibles are Catholic, Orthodox and `quasichristian` protestant translations but is some cases, it is not so clear. This is a very important issue for readers of the article and I ask that you endevear to put accurate information on all Bible translations showing which group of Christians it belongs to. Let us face the truth in this, Catholics do not trust protestants at all when it comes to the Bible nor should we after they threw out seven books. I know that protestants and Orthodox do not trust Catholics, though I consider this just a blind prejudice. In any event, every version of the Bible listed here needs to be marked as a Catholic, protestant or Orthodox.
In Japan the early version of the Bible actually has been preserved. It is called the Mitedake. It is written entirely in Katakana characters and is not meant to be read aloud but only to be looked at. There are several of these still in existance and are kept by Japanese Catholics in Japan. These Bibles were used during the time when Christianity was illigal in Japan. Most of them are very old, some almost 500 years old. They are written on sheets of cloth that are meant to be rolled up or layed flat in a box for storage. They are considered an important treasure by the Catholic Church in Japan and though they are no longer used, the families that own them hold a kind of special prestige among the Catholic faithful here as proof of their 500 years of the family being Catholic and surviving the pursecution. Several of these Mitedake Bibles were recently studied and the Japanese Chanel NHK did a 2 hour report about the Hidden Christians that included information about these Bibles and video of the families and the Bibles were shown on Japanese TV. One of these Bibles was destroyed during the reign of Meiji my Samurai in Tsuwano Japan as a form of torture, since the Catholics who used it in secret for 300 years were forced to watch it burn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 ( talk) 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the phrase "but it was still considered quite difficult to understand for the average Zulu person." It has had a "cite needed" tag since November 2007. I seriously doubt that it is any more difficult to read for a native user of Zulu, than the KJV is for a native user of English. I don't know which edition of the Zulu Bible I have, but it isn't any more difficult for me to read, than Illanga ( http://www.ilanganews.co.za/) is.
The sentence "Work on the Old Testament is in progress, and should be completed around 2016." was deleted, because the article at http://www.biblesociety.org/wr_329/329_26.htm implies that it has been completed. What I can't tell is if the 1986 date is for the "new" Zulu orthography, or if it is a brand new translation. The South African Bible Society website doesn't clarify the issue. jonathon ( talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Modern Greek is in bad english ("revisioned" etc.) and besides sounds rather mixed up and generally uninformative. I suspect this could do with a great deal of tidying up (better: rewriting from scratch?) but don't have the expertise (or time) to do that myself, so I'm just asking for someone out there with the ability to attend to this if possible. For one thing, As far as I know the Vamvas translation was written in the mid-nineteenth century and therefore it is misleading to mention this AFTER a 1901 edition (of what? which translation?) has been introduced in the text. Altogether, could we have some reliable facts and a clear exposition? Thanks. Alan -- A R King ( talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have requested comments on WP:FEED. Below is my request:
I just (roughly) completed a merge on this page, and it still needs a significant amount of editing to maintain its B class. Before I start on the detailing though, I would appreciate some high level perspective on the goals and format of this article. Specifically:
Recently, two users have deleted a fair amount of text. I don't understand why. Would somebody please explain the logic for this. Should these be reversed? Pete unseth ( talk) 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Note to editors Following discussion on the 'Talk' page in June 2008, it is intended to split this article into separate articles, one per language, usually called "Bible translations (Language)" (substitute 'Language'). Eventually this article will reduce towards a list of pointers to such articles. 1. Starting a new language? Could you do so at such a page, please? The only change you would make to this page would be in the index immediately following. See, for instance, "Bible translations (Apache)". 2. Editing an existing language? Could you consider splitting it out into a separate article? Thanks.
The Revised Korean Version is called in my Korean Bible Korean Revised Version. Shall we change the present name? AurinKo ( talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There many places here where it says "Main article - translations of Bible into Language X" but then the link is in red, indicating that Wikipedia does not have an article with that title. Can some one please remove these misleading references to articles that are not in Wikipedia? For example, there is a sub-heading "Translations of the Bible into Xhosa" and then it says "Main article - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but Wikipedia does not have an article of that name. I agree it is of interest to know that the whole Bible has been translated into Xhosa, but unless Wikipedia actually did have an article on the subject, we do not really need to put in the misleading red link. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you - I just thought I had better raise the issue here first, just in case there had been articles on those at one time which got deleted, or to find out whether any one had any objections to my suggestion. Thank you for your help,
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning here that the Bible has been translated into Klingon? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Quenya has been broken out to Bible translations into fictional languages. If there's a WP:RS then please feel free to add. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The German translations are missing AurinKo ( talk) 02:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a complete reorganization. Editor2020 ( talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Should not the title of this article be a List of Bible translations by language? That would be more in keeping with Wikipedia convention. Peaceray ( talk) 08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Finished. Good to go to list format. Who will do that? In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was searching for a list of languages by date they were translated into the bible. The present format of this article makes it very difficult to gather this information. I was hoping for something similar to wikipedia article of List of languages by first written accounts. 66.81.29.56 ( talk) 16:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Are Karen & Kareni really two different languages? Pete unseth ( talk) 12:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)