This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Complete Jewish Bible was copied or moved into Messianic Bible translations with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Complete Jewish Bible was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 December 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Messianic Bible translations. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Would this translation be worthy of adding to the main list? Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Messianic-Version-Bible-ebook/dp/B00EPR3URE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.162 ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as a translation of the Bible that is a) Produced by a Messianic Jewish translator/organization b)Translates the Tanakh based on the Masoretic text c) Does not contain antinomian translational renderings present in most Christian Bible translations, and USUALLY but not NECESSARILY d)Renders names and places in Hebraized format.
The "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible meets none but the fourth of the above criteria (which is not truly essential for a MJ translation) and is produced by a conventional Christian denominational organization, not a Messianic Jewish organization. Furthermore, although it does render original Hebrew names/places, it pronounces the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which NO Messianic translations that I know of do, and which the majority of Messianics find objectionable or are at the very least uncomfortable with. The vast majority of Messianic Bible translations would meet all four criteria, and render the sacred Tetragrammaton as "Adonai" or "El<...>, not as a pronounced Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh"
That is why I am removing it from this list. Thank you, and please raise any objections here. Noogster 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Here we are again, Nov. 2012, with a new round of disagreements about what constitutes a Messianic Bible. There have been some repeated edits and reversals. How can we resolve this amicably? Shall we list here the versions in question, then discuss their features? We cannot simply keep reverting each other's edits. Peace to all. Pete unseth ( talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Quoted: but also employs the Hebrew יהוה for the proper name of God throughout, contrary to Jewish tradition. Let's be very careful about phrasing this so as not to confuse uninitiated readers of this article. The four Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh simply being written on paper is not contrary to Jewish tradition (if you ever see "Adonai" or "HaShem" on a Torah scroll then the scroll is definitely not kosher), it is the attempted PRONUNCIATION of the Name that is. As far as I'm concerned they could be simply writing out (in unpointed Hebrew) what is already there in the Hebrew manuscripts in order to provide maximal theological leeway to those that are reading from the text. Noogster 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone might like to research a couple of other Messianic bible translations which are gaining wide circulation:
1. Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition (RSTNE) which is now running into its third edition. It is published by [ Your Arms to Israel].
2. Hebraic-Roots Version (HRV) which uniquely seeks the Aramaic and Hebraic roots of the NT employing the Peshitta and other Syriac texts. It is published by the producers of the ISRV which appears in the main article [ ISR] ( Landau7 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
3. The Orthodox Jewish Bible which is written with a view to appealing to the Orthodox Hassidic community of New York and Israel [ OJB] ( Landau7 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC))NOTICE THAT SOME ENEMY OF THE GOOD NEWS HAS DELETED ALL TRACE OF THE OJB FROM THE MAIN ARTICLE.
4. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_society It should be noted that the editors of the Bible Society wikipedia article refuse to include the organization that publishes The Orthodox Jewish Bible but they are quite willing to list the killer cult that is notorious for forbidding blood transfusions to bleeding-to-death J.W. cult members. This tendentiousness shows a clear bias against Messianic translations and the editor(s) of the Bible Society article should be brought to accountabiltiy for what they are doing, INCLUDING the listing of a cult and EXCLUDING a messianic bible society, afii.org.]
I am once again deleting the reference to the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the section it supports. The link to orthodoxjewishbible.org does not establish notability. Before this section can be re-added notability must be established through reliable sources. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? One of my mentors was Ken Taylor, the translator of The Living Bible who also founded one of the largest Bible publishing companies in the world, Tyndale House Publishers in Wheaton, Illinois. Would Tim and the rest of you say that their Bible could not be listed here because they also have a not for profit arm that publishes their Bibles in foreign languages? Why strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? To be even-handed, why don't you take your microscope off of me and put it on the killer cult Yehovah Witnesses (bleeding to death Jehovah Witnesses are [or were] denied blood transfusions by their killer cult) that you have listed, whose non-Bible "Bible" you gratuitously seem to have no problems with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredeee ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that the ESV is included in the category of being a Messianic translation. I guess it brings us again to "What is a Messianic translation?" One wiki-editor once even objected to my categorization of Heinz Cassirer's translation of the New Testament as being Messianic. I don't find the ESV to be particularly Messianic.
But there is a simpler issue: is this about the ESV or a specific edition with study notes. Whoever inserted this originally, did they mean the ESV text or the study edition? Some clarificatino of this would be helpful. Peaceably Pete unseth ( talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I and a few other editors have been improving an article called Sacred Name Bibles and was hoping to include some of these Bibles in that category. Sacred Name Bibles use the Name. The other point I would like to mention is that, a "Messianic Bible" is going to clash with a group called the Assemblies of Yahweh. They are called "Messianic Israelites" and so there might be an issue there as they could just as easily use the term "Messianic Bible" to describe the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. If someone could get back to me about the former point that would be brilliant! ( SNMovement) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
On Amazon I have seen this bible and reviews seemed to be comparing it to the Complete Jewish Bible. I think there's only a New Testament for it. This is my first talk and I don't really know how to properly edit stuff so it would be up to you guys to add it to the page if you deem it worthy. They have a website too: http://www.treeoflifebible.org/#!read-the-tlv/c1bs6 Learis ( talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I come here because I've been on a site that offer Messianic Bible, saying it corrects some mistakes of translation of English Bible. But what are the mistakes and the difference between them? For instance, is a Messianic Bible trinitary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B894:712F:A1B7:285C ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Was the name originally unpronounceable? No. People pronounced it all the time, say, in the period when the Bible was written. Was the name later traditionally unpronounceable? Yes. Jewish tradition forbade pronouncing it. Did it later become actually unpronounceable? Sort of. The Masoretes in the middle ages put some vowels on it that are just ... not workable, so if one was just going by the name with the traditional nekudos one couldn't be sure how it was pronounced. Is it's pronunciation still unknown? The consensus of scholars is that it was Yahweh, and has been for over a century.
In that sense it's no more unpronounceable than the name Habakkuk. Was the name Habakkuk originally pronounced with a 'v' or 'b' sound on that second consonant? I dunno. But I wouldn't call it unpronounceable. So YHWH is unpronounceable in certain religious contexts but pronounceable in the sense that it can in fact be pronounced, or at the very least a well-supported scholarly reconstruction can be pronounced.
I would hope there is some better way to deal with this issue that just yanking the bare word "unpronounceable" in and out of an article. Alephb ( talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In the lead section, the English language is specified as if it's part of the definition. Is it really intended that way? It seems to me that "translated into a modern language" would reasonably be a defining characteristic, thus excluding purely original-language publications - but I think if such a book were published in (for example) Spanish or Chinese, it ought to qualify. It may be true that all existing examples do happen to be in English, and I'm not arguing that point. I just doubt that English should define the category. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Complete Jewish Bible was copied or moved into Messianic Bible translations with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Complete Jewish Bible was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 December 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Messianic Bible translations. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Would this translation be worthy of adding to the main list? Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Messianic-Version-Bible-ebook/dp/B00EPR3URE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.162 ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as a translation of the Bible that is a) Produced by a Messianic Jewish translator/organization b)Translates the Tanakh based on the Masoretic text c) Does not contain antinomian translational renderings present in most Christian Bible translations, and USUALLY but not NECESSARILY d)Renders names and places in Hebraized format.
The "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible meets none but the fourth of the above criteria (which is not truly essential for a MJ translation) and is produced by a conventional Christian denominational organization, not a Messianic Jewish organization. Furthermore, although it does render original Hebrew names/places, it pronounces the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which NO Messianic translations that I know of do, and which the majority of Messianics find objectionable or are at the very least uncomfortable with. The vast majority of Messianic Bible translations would meet all four criteria, and render the sacred Tetragrammaton as "Adonai" or "El<...>, not as a pronounced Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh"
That is why I am removing it from this list. Thank you, and please raise any objections here. Noogster 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Here we are again, Nov. 2012, with a new round of disagreements about what constitutes a Messianic Bible. There have been some repeated edits and reversals. How can we resolve this amicably? Shall we list here the versions in question, then discuss their features? We cannot simply keep reverting each other's edits. Peace to all. Pete unseth ( talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Quoted: but also employs the Hebrew יהוה for the proper name of God throughout, contrary to Jewish tradition. Let's be very careful about phrasing this so as not to confuse uninitiated readers of this article. The four Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh simply being written on paper is not contrary to Jewish tradition (if you ever see "Adonai" or "HaShem" on a Torah scroll then the scroll is definitely not kosher), it is the attempted PRONUNCIATION of the Name that is. As far as I'm concerned they could be simply writing out (in unpointed Hebrew) what is already there in the Hebrew manuscripts in order to provide maximal theological leeway to those that are reading from the text. Noogster 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone might like to research a couple of other Messianic bible translations which are gaining wide circulation:
1. Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition (RSTNE) which is now running into its third edition. It is published by [ Your Arms to Israel].
2. Hebraic-Roots Version (HRV) which uniquely seeks the Aramaic and Hebraic roots of the NT employing the Peshitta and other Syriac texts. It is published by the producers of the ISRV which appears in the main article [ ISR] ( Landau7 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
3. The Orthodox Jewish Bible which is written with a view to appealing to the Orthodox Hassidic community of New York and Israel [ OJB] ( Landau7 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC))NOTICE THAT SOME ENEMY OF THE GOOD NEWS HAS DELETED ALL TRACE OF THE OJB FROM THE MAIN ARTICLE.
4. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_society It should be noted that the editors of the Bible Society wikipedia article refuse to include the organization that publishes The Orthodox Jewish Bible but they are quite willing to list the killer cult that is notorious for forbidding blood transfusions to bleeding-to-death J.W. cult members. This tendentiousness shows a clear bias against Messianic translations and the editor(s) of the Bible Society article should be brought to accountabiltiy for what they are doing, INCLUDING the listing of a cult and EXCLUDING a messianic bible society, afii.org.]
I am once again deleting the reference to the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the section it supports. The link to orthodoxjewishbible.org does not establish notability. Before this section can be re-added notability must be established through reliable sources. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? One of my mentors was Ken Taylor, the translator of The Living Bible who also founded one of the largest Bible publishing companies in the world, Tyndale House Publishers in Wheaton, Illinois. Would Tim and the rest of you say that their Bible could not be listed here because they also have a not for profit arm that publishes their Bibles in foreign languages? Why strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? To be even-handed, why don't you take your microscope off of me and put it on the killer cult Yehovah Witnesses (bleeding to death Jehovah Witnesses are [or were] denied blood transfusions by their killer cult) that you have listed, whose non-Bible "Bible" you gratuitously seem to have no problems with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredeee ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that the ESV is included in the category of being a Messianic translation. I guess it brings us again to "What is a Messianic translation?" One wiki-editor once even objected to my categorization of Heinz Cassirer's translation of the New Testament as being Messianic. I don't find the ESV to be particularly Messianic.
But there is a simpler issue: is this about the ESV or a specific edition with study notes. Whoever inserted this originally, did they mean the ESV text or the study edition? Some clarificatino of this would be helpful. Peaceably Pete unseth ( talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I and a few other editors have been improving an article called Sacred Name Bibles and was hoping to include some of these Bibles in that category. Sacred Name Bibles use the Name. The other point I would like to mention is that, a "Messianic Bible" is going to clash with a group called the Assemblies of Yahweh. They are called "Messianic Israelites" and so there might be an issue there as they could just as easily use the term "Messianic Bible" to describe the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. If someone could get back to me about the former point that would be brilliant! ( SNMovement) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
On Amazon I have seen this bible and reviews seemed to be comparing it to the Complete Jewish Bible. I think there's only a New Testament for it. This is my first talk and I don't really know how to properly edit stuff so it would be up to you guys to add it to the page if you deem it worthy. They have a website too: http://www.treeoflifebible.org/#!read-the-tlv/c1bs6 Learis ( talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I come here because I've been on a site that offer Messianic Bible, saying it corrects some mistakes of translation of English Bible. But what are the mistakes and the difference between them? For instance, is a Messianic Bible trinitary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B894:712F:A1B7:285C ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Was the name originally unpronounceable? No. People pronounced it all the time, say, in the period when the Bible was written. Was the name later traditionally unpronounceable? Yes. Jewish tradition forbade pronouncing it. Did it later become actually unpronounceable? Sort of. The Masoretes in the middle ages put some vowels on it that are just ... not workable, so if one was just going by the name with the traditional nekudos one couldn't be sure how it was pronounced. Is it's pronunciation still unknown? The consensus of scholars is that it was Yahweh, and has been for over a century.
In that sense it's no more unpronounceable than the name Habakkuk. Was the name Habakkuk originally pronounced with a 'v' or 'b' sound on that second consonant? I dunno. But I wouldn't call it unpronounceable. So YHWH is unpronounceable in certain religious contexts but pronounceable in the sense that it can in fact be pronounced, or at the very least a well-supported scholarly reconstruction can be pronounced.
I would hope there is some better way to deal with this issue that just yanking the bare word "unpronounceable" in and out of an article. Alephb ( talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In the lead section, the English language is specified as if it's part of the definition. Is it really intended that way? It seems to me that "translated into a modern language" would reasonably be a defining characteristic, thus excluding purely original-language publications - but I think if such a book were published in (for example) Spanish or Chinese, it ought to qualify. It may be true that all existing examples do happen to be in English, and I'm not arguing that point. I just doubt that English should define the category. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)