![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've added a To Do List for this article, it's on the top, but I'll post it here. Please keep track of things on that list so we can be coordinated and efficient in our work.
That's really nice of you. Thanks.
BTW, since ESV's Translation Philosophy and History are first up. Perhaps these should incorporate little hints of things to come like "Colorada Springs Guidelines 1997", criticisms from scholars like Dr. Ben Witherington (?) (who allegedly recanted) etc. etc. so that the average reader would want to know more.
RobertRosen (
talk)
16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
@ User:StAnselm, This is a dispute between 2 editors seeking a 3rd opinion. There is also a previously expressed grievance by one of the editors involved about "tag teaming" by you and User:ReformedArsenal. WP:3 only works when there are 2 editors involved. To everyone else, I'll say this only once, this is an encyclopedic article about the ESV and not about the contents of the ESV. WP:AGF, WP:NPA RobertRosen ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
@Reformed Arsenal. That's some very nice work you've done there. I still have some problems with the referencing though. For eg. "Crossway 2012". Is this the ESV itself ? In which case it references itself on some controversial points. There's a glaring lack of page numbers in cites. Also, "Crossway Staff", this resolves to an corporate SPS blogpost - the description is misleading and the ref may not be usable on a controversial issue. Lets see if we can work around this. RobertRosen ( talk) 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok... first of all, Bas... can we agree that if the sources that are provided use the term liberal, that the term liberal belongs in the article? Second of all, the "Crossway Staff" author tag is the listed author of the blog post. Thirdly, I understand that "crossway" is bad tag, when I get a change I'll go back and try to clear up which citations belong where and make them more clear. As far as the lack of page number, all I did was convert the existing references, I did not remove any page numbers that were present. And Bas, as far as your "If you believe the RSV is liberal, if I still prayed, I would pray you never become a theologian, seriously." statement... my oppinion of the RSV is absolutely irrelevant... as is yours. We are here to REPORT what others have said. Your posturing and chest pounding is absolutely unimpressive, nor is your ad hominem stance and statements.
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
15:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Since it seems that nobody is up to to contribute anymore, this article needs a WP:BOLD approach by an outsider to trim the "cruft", and so that the regular editors can properly re-build the article together. Will do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertRosen ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
@Reformed Arsenal. Since many of this article's sources/refs. do not seem to be accessible online, outside editors expect that editors who add material will follow WP norms and cite the claim properly. The poor referencing had allowed a lot of OR to be bunged in. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the page as long as at least 2 principles - WP:V, WP;NOR are strictly followed. FYI, I have no idea why I deleted the Grudem bits. This article was bloatware - I've tried to give both of you ;-) a clear field to play on again. I'm closing this WP:3 now. If things get out of hand again leave a message on my talk. RobertRosen ( talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrt "Grudem 2005". The book (Translating Truth) would not be a reliable source to make an argument about translation styles for the ESV. Firstly, it seems to be a collection of essays by the people who translated the ESV (this means no peer reviews or other editorial safeguards). Secondly as per the book it "advocates essentially literal Bible translation". Thirdly it is published by Crossway. Fourthly the line of argument that the guilloting editor is obliged to go a library, locate & read the entire book because the pages/para are not specified in the cite, is a crock - and more than sufficient grounds for any editor to excise such poorly cited material immediately. Fifthly, it seems Mr. Grudem is a crank (?) who at page 54 in that book seems to be making out a case that "God gave us a Bible which is a secret and hidden wisdom of God that non-Christians will not simply not understand and even Christians will only understand after repeated study, reflection, and meditation". That coupled with the fact that the book is titled "Translating Truth" makes a very poor case for it as an unbiased RS to be included in an enyclopedia. I'm also seeing online that most readers of the book (not Grudem's chapter alone) think the book makes a case for "literal" (word for word) translation rather than "Dynamic Equivalence" (sense for sense) translation. So if you use Grudem as a ref, use it wisely. RobertRosen ( talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
ReformedArsenal, I had place my edit back over yours. It was not to be disagreeable in a personal sense, but the sources says "the ESV is a moderate revision." Somehow the wording "translated differently" seems to be going past the intent of the source. There would need to be a source for this but I think you will find most change was to bring the language, at least parts, out of the 1950s. That needs a source though and I read that somewhere a long time ago. Basileias ( talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I did some work, enough I cannot be put in slacker status anymore. I am going to leave what I did set for a few hours because I want to make sure nobody needs to run for the Pepto. We all had to do that on election day, and more than once a month is enough. Basileias ( talk) 01:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Just for information, User:RobertRosen is currently blocked indefinitely, so may not be able to contribute further to this page. St Anselm ( talk) 10:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just seen a feedback post on this article: "This doesn't tell what the basis for the translation is. Thought for thought? word for word? sentence for sentence?" That's a pretty glaring omission - we really need to add some of the deleted material back into the article. St Anselm ( talk) 07:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The criticism section was added back by an IP "per consensus" here. I reverted this as trolling, partially on the basis of the IP's talk page comment, which I removed. The same IP has added back the criticism section here, with the edit summary "Put material back per last consensus". Now, does anyone feel the section should remain, given its reliance on self-published sources? St Anselm ( talk) 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The Use section needs a lot of work. Right now it's basically just a collection of statements by publishers saying what they use the text for. We should try to find some 3rd party sources for that section, or trim it down to a list style that has something like
The following Bibles use the ESV as their text
- Bible 1
- Bible 2
- Bible 3
With full citation notes for each of them. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
When I set up the Archive, I did it wrong, hopefully this will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits about the origin of the ESV are called a second hand tale by Crossway. This has been thoroughly beat to death on this talk page. Please review if you have questions. ( http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/02/origin-of-the-esv/). Basileias ( talk) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi-
I'm aware that Crossway disputes these accounts: I cited the blog post you link on this subject in my edit. However, just because Crossway denies these reports does not mean that they aren't true. One of the authors of the WORLD Magazine article was involved in the central events leading into and through the Colorado Springs Guidelines sessions, and has collected contemporaneous documentation that the idea of revising the RSV to create a competitor to (T)NIV on gender and Messianic proof-text translation issues was under discussion with the subsequent principals of the ESV at the time leading into and immediately after the issuance of the Guidelines.
Additionally, if you look at the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, you'll see that over half of them were signatories to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and/or to the subsequent Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible, objecting to these same elements of the TNIV translation. This includes General Editor J. I. Packer, Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, and others who have a long and abiding history of academic and other activity centered on promoting these issues in Biblical translation and elsewhere in the Church. You can see examples of this from the publications on their Wiki pages and/or academic homepages, such as this from Poythress, and the book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words (written by Grudem and Poythress, with a laudatory blurb by Packer on the front cover, which is centrally concerned with the use of gendered translation as it regards the revision of the NIV/NIVI/TNIV in particular (indeed, it was later reissued (revised/updated?) as The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy). You can also see eg. this interview with Packer (including embedded links to previous chunks thereof), and the close association of all three and other ESV principals with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Put together with the internal evidence from the preface of the ESV itself, which (as mentioned in one of the sources I'd linked in my edit) dedicates a substantial chunk of text to these issues, I think that there is enough documentation and evidence supporting the account of the genesis of the ESV given by WORLD Magazine, Witherington, and others, to merit having their version presented, alongside Crossway's own. Mikalra ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Mikalra ( talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
A reference to the Gideons using the ESV has been removed on the basis that it "does not add anything to the article". But it seems to me that it does - it shows the usage of the ESV, in a similar way to the mention of the study Bibles already in the article. I think the text should be reinstated. St Anselm ( talk) 21:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I found the Dead Sea Scrolls missing from the Old testament on the ESV page, but not in the NRSV, and NIV pages.
http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv/translation/manuscripts/
Says it on their homepage they use dead sea scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish Hebrew Bible scrolls! The Jews are in Israel. I don't see how anyone is afraid of some Egyptian pyramids mentioned in the scrolls. The Mexican pyramids are even older then the either Dead Sea Scrolls or Egyptian pyramids.
Crossway
self-reported a
FK grade level of 7.4, while the infobox says 8.0 according to
Rose Publishing 2007.
Not sure if there's a clean way to state both numbers in the infobox, so I'll just leave the information here... --
D昌양 (
Talk)
05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer ( talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: before Aussie Article Writer was blocked, they posted the following two sections. Although the next section claims that the article was failed, it was not, in fact, failed, and the review was set to continue when the block occurred. A new reviewer will be needed to do the detailed review that Aussie Article Writer did not get around to conducting. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:
My biggest criticism is in the structure. The lead section doesn’t summarise, it seems to cram a lot of what should be in the body into the lead.
I also think that much of “criticism” should be placed into the history section. I find “criticism” sections problematic, because really most of this is around the philosophical approach to the translation by the translators. There also seems to be an overly unbalanced take on gendered language (this is my opinion).
I am also curious if there are not more articles in religious and theological journals about the ESV.
I have therefore not done my more detailed GA review as we need to deal with structural issues first.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 00:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I will look at this shortly, but I’m afraid this article has some major issues. I’m not sure a GA review will fix them. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 05:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since Aussie Article Writer has been blocked and cannot continue this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hope to get to this shortly. Thank you --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Whiteguru, thanks very much for your help! I have now resolved the main points that you brought up. I'll jump through them all quickly:
Please let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks again for your help! VistaSunset ( talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
...also! Just out of curiosity, what reference was reference 30 specifically? I can't see the one (via numbering) I think you're referring to in either Read or Edit. VistaSunset ( talk) 04:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) It was the list of changes given out by Crossway; it is a signal inclusion - and gives evidence - to understanding transitivity and reading of the bible. There will never be a static reception of The Bible. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Post-GA, I have tidied the citations to adhere to MOS:REFPUNCT and avoid citation overkill. VistaSunset ( talk) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This article recently had the "Primary source" tag removed. Primary sources are classified as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, etc, etc. What was added for sources after that tag was removed was a definite "primary source" and questionable secondary sources.
waynegrudem.com – The translations editor and lead. Without a doubt! A primary source.
bible-researcher.com is a self-published website that based on views expressed, is dancing around the edges of a primary source. It's also self-published and no established study in biblical languages or language translation experience.
baptistbulletin.org – While a secondary source, questionable as a reliable secondary source.
www.apbrown2.net – A personal website with no established study in biblical languages. This is far removed from being established as a reliable secondary source.
Views like "Accuracy improved," "Commendation," claims of "liberal influences," "essentially literal, the meaning of each Greek Hebrew word faithfully represented…" are all within a definite opinion category. These views require better sources. Basileias ( talk) 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Primary Source Question: Does this mean we cannot use explantory information from the preface or the introduction of the book? We need to find someone who read the preface and introduction then mentioned it a published article? Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to start compiling a list of scholarly sources for the ESV:
It might also be worthwhile looking at:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've added a To Do List for this article, it's on the top, but I'll post it here. Please keep track of things on that list so we can be coordinated and efficient in our work.
That's really nice of you. Thanks.
BTW, since ESV's Translation Philosophy and History are first up. Perhaps these should incorporate little hints of things to come like "Colorada Springs Guidelines 1997", criticisms from scholars like Dr. Ben Witherington (?) (who allegedly recanted) etc. etc. so that the average reader would want to know more.
RobertRosen (
talk)
16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
@ User:StAnselm, This is a dispute between 2 editors seeking a 3rd opinion. There is also a previously expressed grievance by one of the editors involved about "tag teaming" by you and User:ReformedArsenal. WP:3 only works when there are 2 editors involved. To everyone else, I'll say this only once, this is an encyclopedic article about the ESV and not about the contents of the ESV. WP:AGF, WP:NPA RobertRosen ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
@Reformed Arsenal. That's some very nice work you've done there. I still have some problems with the referencing though. For eg. "Crossway 2012". Is this the ESV itself ? In which case it references itself on some controversial points. There's a glaring lack of page numbers in cites. Also, "Crossway Staff", this resolves to an corporate SPS blogpost - the description is misleading and the ref may not be usable on a controversial issue. Lets see if we can work around this. RobertRosen ( talk) 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok... first of all, Bas... can we agree that if the sources that are provided use the term liberal, that the term liberal belongs in the article? Second of all, the "Crossway Staff" author tag is the listed author of the blog post. Thirdly, I understand that "crossway" is bad tag, when I get a change I'll go back and try to clear up which citations belong where and make them more clear. As far as the lack of page number, all I did was convert the existing references, I did not remove any page numbers that were present. And Bas, as far as your "If you believe the RSV is liberal, if I still prayed, I would pray you never become a theologian, seriously." statement... my oppinion of the RSV is absolutely irrelevant... as is yours. We are here to REPORT what others have said. Your posturing and chest pounding is absolutely unimpressive, nor is your ad hominem stance and statements.
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
15:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Since it seems that nobody is up to to contribute anymore, this article needs a WP:BOLD approach by an outsider to trim the "cruft", and so that the regular editors can properly re-build the article together. Will do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertRosen ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
@Reformed Arsenal. Since many of this article's sources/refs. do not seem to be accessible online, outside editors expect that editors who add material will follow WP norms and cite the claim properly. The poor referencing had allowed a lot of OR to be bunged in. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the page as long as at least 2 principles - WP:V, WP;NOR are strictly followed. FYI, I have no idea why I deleted the Grudem bits. This article was bloatware - I've tried to give both of you ;-) a clear field to play on again. I'm closing this WP:3 now. If things get out of hand again leave a message on my talk. RobertRosen ( talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrt "Grudem 2005". The book (Translating Truth) would not be a reliable source to make an argument about translation styles for the ESV. Firstly, it seems to be a collection of essays by the people who translated the ESV (this means no peer reviews or other editorial safeguards). Secondly as per the book it "advocates essentially literal Bible translation". Thirdly it is published by Crossway. Fourthly the line of argument that the guilloting editor is obliged to go a library, locate & read the entire book because the pages/para are not specified in the cite, is a crock - and more than sufficient grounds for any editor to excise such poorly cited material immediately. Fifthly, it seems Mr. Grudem is a crank (?) who at page 54 in that book seems to be making out a case that "God gave us a Bible which is a secret and hidden wisdom of God that non-Christians will not simply not understand and even Christians will only understand after repeated study, reflection, and meditation". That coupled with the fact that the book is titled "Translating Truth" makes a very poor case for it as an unbiased RS to be included in an enyclopedia. I'm also seeing online that most readers of the book (not Grudem's chapter alone) think the book makes a case for "literal" (word for word) translation rather than "Dynamic Equivalence" (sense for sense) translation. So if you use Grudem as a ref, use it wisely. RobertRosen ( talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
ReformedArsenal, I had place my edit back over yours. It was not to be disagreeable in a personal sense, but the sources says "the ESV is a moderate revision." Somehow the wording "translated differently" seems to be going past the intent of the source. There would need to be a source for this but I think you will find most change was to bring the language, at least parts, out of the 1950s. That needs a source though and I read that somewhere a long time ago. Basileias ( talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I did some work, enough I cannot be put in slacker status anymore. I am going to leave what I did set for a few hours because I want to make sure nobody needs to run for the Pepto. We all had to do that on election day, and more than once a month is enough. Basileias ( talk) 01:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Just for information, User:RobertRosen is currently blocked indefinitely, so may not be able to contribute further to this page. St Anselm ( talk) 10:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just seen a feedback post on this article: "This doesn't tell what the basis for the translation is. Thought for thought? word for word? sentence for sentence?" That's a pretty glaring omission - we really need to add some of the deleted material back into the article. St Anselm ( talk) 07:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The criticism section was added back by an IP "per consensus" here. I reverted this as trolling, partially on the basis of the IP's talk page comment, which I removed. The same IP has added back the criticism section here, with the edit summary "Put material back per last consensus". Now, does anyone feel the section should remain, given its reliance on self-published sources? St Anselm ( talk) 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The Use section needs a lot of work. Right now it's basically just a collection of statements by publishers saying what they use the text for. We should try to find some 3rd party sources for that section, or trim it down to a list style that has something like
The following Bibles use the ESV as their text
- Bible 1
- Bible 2
- Bible 3
With full citation notes for each of them. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
When I set up the Archive, I did it wrong, hopefully this will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits about the origin of the ESV are called a second hand tale by Crossway. This has been thoroughly beat to death on this talk page. Please review if you have questions. ( http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/02/origin-of-the-esv/). Basileias ( talk) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi-
I'm aware that Crossway disputes these accounts: I cited the blog post you link on this subject in my edit. However, just because Crossway denies these reports does not mean that they aren't true. One of the authors of the WORLD Magazine article was involved in the central events leading into and through the Colorado Springs Guidelines sessions, and has collected contemporaneous documentation that the idea of revising the RSV to create a competitor to (T)NIV on gender and Messianic proof-text translation issues was under discussion with the subsequent principals of the ESV at the time leading into and immediately after the issuance of the Guidelines.
Additionally, if you look at the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, you'll see that over half of them were signatories to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and/or to the subsequent Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible, objecting to these same elements of the TNIV translation. This includes General Editor J. I. Packer, Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, and others who have a long and abiding history of academic and other activity centered on promoting these issues in Biblical translation and elsewhere in the Church. You can see examples of this from the publications on their Wiki pages and/or academic homepages, such as this from Poythress, and the book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words (written by Grudem and Poythress, with a laudatory blurb by Packer on the front cover, which is centrally concerned with the use of gendered translation as it regards the revision of the NIV/NIVI/TNIV in particular (indeed, it was later reissued (revised/updated?) as The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy). You can also see eg. this interview with Packer (including embedded links to previous chunks thereof), and the close association of all three and other ESV principals with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Put together with the internal evidence from the preface of the ESV itself, which (as mentioned in one of the sources I'd linked in my edit) dedicates a substantial chunk of text to these issues, I think that there is enough documentation and evidence supporting the account of the genesis of the ESV given by WORLD Magazine, Witherington, and others, to merit having their version presented, alongside Crossway's own. Mikalra ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Mikalra ( talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
A reference to the Gideons using the ESV has been removed on the basis that it "does not add anything to the article". But it seems to me that it does - it shows the usage of the ESV, in a similar way to the mention of the study Bibles already in the article. I think the text should be reinstated. St Anselm ( talk) 21:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I found the Dead Sea Scrolls missing from the Old testament on the ESV page, but not in the NRSV, and NIV pages.
http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv/translation/manuscripts/
Says it on their homepage they use dead sea scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish Hebrew Bible scrolls! The Jews are in Israel. I don't see how anyone is afraid of some Egyptian pyramids mentioned in the scrolls. The Mexican pyramids are even older then the either Dead Sea Scrolls or Egyptian pyramids.
Crossway
self-reported a
FK grade level of 7.4, while the infobox says 8.0 according to
Rose Publishing 2007.
Not sure if there's a clean way to state both numbers in the infobox, so I'll just leave the information here... --
D昌양 (
Talk)
05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer ( talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: before Aussie Article Writer was blocked, they posted the following two sections. Although the next section claims that the article was failed, it was not, in fact, failed, and the review was set to continue when the block occurred. A new reviewer will be needed to do the detailed review that Aussie Article Writer did not get around to conducting. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:
My biggest criticism is in the structure. The lead section doesn’t summarise, it seems to cram a lot of what should be in the body into the lead.
I also think that much of “criticism” should be placed into the history section. I find “criticism” sections problematic, because really most of this is around the philosophical approach to the translation by the translators. There also seems to be an overly unbalanced take on gendered language (this is my opinion).
I am also curious if there are not more articles in religious and theological journals about the ESV.
I have therefore not done my more detailed GA review as we need to deal with structural issues first.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 00:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I will look at this shortly, but I’m afraid this article has some major issues. I’m not sure a GA review will fix them. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 05:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since Aussie Article Writer has been blocked and cannot continue this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hope to get to this shortly. Thank you --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Whiteguru, thanks very much for your help! I have now resolved the main points that you brought up. I'll jump through them all quickly:
Please let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks again for your help! VistaSunset ( talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
...also! Just out of curiosity, what reference was reference 30 specifically? I can't see the one (via numbering) I think you're referring to in either Read or Edit. VistaSunset ( talk) 04:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) It was the list of changes given out by Crossway; it is a signal inclusion - and gives evidence - to understanding transitivity and reading of the bible. There will never be a static reception of The Bible. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Post-GA, I have tidied the citations to adhere to MOS:REFPUNCT and avoid citation overkill. VistaSunset ( talk) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This article recently had the "Primary source" tag removed. Primary sources are classified as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, etc, etc. What was added for sources after that tag was removed was a definite "primary source" and questionable secondary sources.
waynegrudem.com – The translations editor and lead. Without a doubt! A primary source.
bible-researcher.com is a self-published website that based on views expressed, is dancing around the edges of a primary source. It's also self-published and no established study in biblical languages or language translation experience.
baptistbulletin.org – While a secondary source, questionable as a reliable secondary source.
www.apbrown2.net – A personal website with no established study in biblical languages. This is far removed from being established as a reliable secondary source.
Views like "Accuracy improved," "Commendation," claims of "liberal influences," "essentially literal, the meaning of each Greek Hebrew word faithfully represented…" are all within a definite opinion category. These views require better sources. Basileias ( talk) 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Primary Source Question: Does this mean we cannot use explantory information from the preface or the introduction of the book? We need to find someone who read the preface and introduction then mentioned it a published article? Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to start compiling a list of scholarly sources for the ESV:
It might also be worthwhile looking at: