Revision as of 03:26, 17 November 2008

Bible Start‑class

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Start‑class

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Any examples of eliminated verses that conflicted with JW doctrine?

discussion of translational choices in NWT

The article contained a statement to the effect that the NWT was produced without explanation of its' renderings. This is incorrect. Reading the appendices in the NWT you will find the reasons the translators gave for their renderings.

Also, the incorrect statement that no other translation has been produced anaymously is a mistake, so I removed it as well.

Thank you. I concur with the change and your reasoning behind it. I own a (revised?) black-cover NWT (circa 1985 or 1990?) and have perused many copies of the original edition (green cover, circa 1978?). From memory (because I don't have it here ;) there are definitely some explanations behind the translation methodology, though many might disagree with the reasoning or find it insufficient. I thought that sentence was a bit odd in the article, but didn't think much about it at the time. Furthermore, I don't think any of that belongs in the ASV article, but the NWT article. It's sufficient for this article to just say that the Witnesses' use of the ASV was supplanted by the NWT.

BTW, your helpful edit suggests you'd make a useful regular Wikipedian. Please feel encouraged to create a user ID, log in, and continue helping. Jdavidb 20:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

=

I believe this article is in error attributing its NT text to the Westcott & Hort Greek edition. It is true that both Westcott & Hort were members of the New Testament Committee of the Revised English Version, the precursor of the ASV, but it is clear that neither the REV nor the ASV (nor the later RSV) were translations of the W&H Greek text. The most obvious evidence of this is that these translations include readings that do not appear in W&H. The Greek underlying the REV is the text worked up by Palmer and published with an apparatus criticus by Souter; I think it would be safe to assure that the ASV was similarly based on the Palmer edition. 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :Thank you.  I concur with the change and your reasoning behind it.  I own a (revised?) black-cover NWT (circa 1985 or 1990?) and have perused many copies of the original edition (green cover, circa 1978?).  From memory (because I don't have it here ;) there are definitely some explanations behind the translation methodology, though many might disagree with the reasoning or find it insufficient.  I thought that sentence was a bit odd in the article, but didn't think much about it at the time.  Furthermore, I don't think any of that belongs in the ASV article, but the NWT article.  It's sufficient for this article to just say that the Witnesses' use of the ASV was supplanted by the NWT.
 :BTW, your helpful edit suggests you'd make a useful regular Wikipedian.  Please feel encouraged to create a user ID, log in, and continue helping. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 20:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
+===
+I believe this article is in error attributing its NT text to the Westcott & Hort Greek edition.  It is true that both Westcott & Hort were members of the New Testament Committee of the Revised English Version, the precursor of the ASV, but it is clear that neither the REV nor the ASV (nor the later RSV) were translations of the W&H Greek text.  The most obvious evidence of this is that these translations include readings that do not appear in W&H.  The Greek underlying the REV is the text worked up by Palmer and published with an apparatus criticus by Souter;  I think it would be safe to assure that the ASV was similarly based on the Palmer edition.
+:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 == POV tag ==