Jump to content

Talk:Bible society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To do:

  • note on Bible societies' formerly mostly reprinting traditional public domain translations, later doing their own new translations
  • more detail on gradually relaxing of the principle of printing the Bible "without note or comment"
  • influence of Bible societies in dropping the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha from Protestant Bible editions

Here are some notes on the above:

  • note on Bible societies' formerly mostly reprinting traditional public domain translations, later doing their own new translations

I don't know of other Bible Societies, but ABS has published the KJV for years along with the NIV, RSV, and NASB - plus their own GNT and CEV.

  • more detail on gradually relaxing of the principle of printing the Bible "without note or comment"

I'm not sure on this.

  • Influence of Bible societies in dropping the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha from Protestant Bible editions

According to [1], the Apocrypha was removed by the British Bible Society in 1827. ABS voted to remove the Apocrypha in 1880. [2] . However, if you go to Bibles.com you can buy a Bible with the Apocrypha.

Hoshie/Crat 02:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, those dates will help some. I had read (but cannot remember where) that Protestants used to customarily print the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha in a separate section of their Bibles for several centuries after they quit believing they were inspired scripture, and that it was primarily the influence of the early Bible societies that led to dropping these books from Protestant Bible editions (even in commercial publishers' editions, not done by Bible societies). --Jim Henry | Talk 19:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've found another source on this:
The Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deutero writings from their canons, classifying them as "Apocrypha". Presbyterians and Calvinists in general, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition, and owing to their influence the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1826 to refuse to distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha. Since that time the publication of the deuterocanonicals as an appendix to Protestant Bibles has almost entirely ceased in English-speaking countries.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Canon of the Old Testament" (George J. Reid, 1908) [3]
--Jim Henry 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Catholicism Catholicism Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Church teaching, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible(Catholic Propaganda. Catholics NO evangelize). In some cases free distribution of Bibles has simply led to these copies being used for profane purposes.(This is too much derogatory toward evangelicals,and MUST TO BE DELETED JUST NOW!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbautista (talkcontribs) .

I'll delete that last sentence, but I'm reverting all your other changes. For the record, you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and I could get you blocked again. You have been reverted countless times by some eight different users. Do not reinsert the material. Melchoir 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable as it is an unsourced statement. BigDT 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this as an article on the Bible Society, rather than quoting Catholic sources on why they don't like the Bible Society?

Catholic Section[edit]

The statement is partly true: "Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Catholic Church teachings, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible."

That is the teaching of Catholicism, but most of the Protestant societies I'm aware of (Wycliffe, etc.) don't "simply give away the text." There is a lot of training and missionary work as part of the translating effort. Perhaps this can be reworded so as not to be POV and more accurate.

This "simply giving away the text of the Bible" may be more accurate about Protestant Bible societies' activities in the past than in the present, I suspect. --Jim Henry 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually it is more relevant of the Trinitarian Bible Society rather than the other Bible Societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe Bible Translators?[edit]

I noticed they are not listed. They should be added to the list, but I don't know if they are part of the UBS or not. 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe are not part of UBS, but the two work together a lot.
Thanks, they have been added. Please be sure to sign your posts. 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft[edit]

Perhaps there should be some mention of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft [4] as well. 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added and a request has been made on the German page to add an article about them. 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredeee (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)== External Links ==[reply]

The external links could use a thorough cleaning up. 03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artists For Israel Bible Society[edit]

Why is a notorious killer cult --no blood transfusions allowed for bleeding to death JW cult adherents-- with a multilated non-Bible "bible" called the "Jehovah Witnesses" INCLUDED and the Artists for Israel Bible Society EXCLUDED? What are we running here, a mental health clinic listing? The well-respected afii.org website is deleted from this external links category but one of its bibles is included under Messianic Bible translations? Uh... It seems that a certain lack of fair-mindedness is in play. It certainly is not an "INAPPROPRIATE" LINK and has just as much right to the label "Bible Society" as any of the other listings. There should not be a tendentious editorial bias here but any organization that is attempting to faithfully distribute the Scriptures should be included and no one little finger should be allowed to regally press the delete button, for that little finger reflects negatively on the whole encyclopedia.

I am the translator of the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) and the Yiddish NT and the Executive Editor of our other Bible Society translations. As to the notability of our Bible Society see this review http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2003/72/72_05.html by the Lausanne people. The editor of all of my books, Donald McGavran, was Billy Graham's choice for Key Note Speaker of the historic Lausanne Conference in 1974 if by chance you don't know what "Lausanne" is all about. I would respectfully ask that you do not keep deleting our Bible Society. Fredeee

Apparently, in the questionable logic on the editors, it is alright for us to have a messianic translations...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Bible_translations as long as we don't make a habit of it and produce Yiddish and Hebrew and Russian Bibles (which we are doing) because that would make a not-for-profit organization like ours a Bible Society, and this just cannot be. The editors show the same mentality as the mail clerks in the prisons of America that gleefully return Bibles and keep the inmates Biblically illiterate. There is a weirdly evil elation to be had in withholding the Word of God. Meanwhile, there is no problem with these same editors when it comes to the Yehovah Witnesses and their non-Bible "Bible." (talk) Phil Goble •

The problem is twofold: 1) that website is sloppy and completely unscholarly. Please fix it. 2) there is a conflict of interest. You are trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising tool for a product that needs work.Tim (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I both agree and disagree with Tim. Mr. Goble, I think it's time for you to get used to the fact that Wikipedia is not free advertising space for you to promote your work. It's an obvious conflict of interest for you to repeatedly add links to your website. My disagreement with Tim is this: I don't honestly believe that there's anything that can be done to your site that will make it anything other than a promotional site for your translation/paraphrase, and Wikipedia does not support linking to promotional sites. The only resolution of this consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is for you to stop spamming these links. Jehovah's Witnesses are completely irrlevant to this discussion, since, as far as I know, there are no links to promotional sites for their translation on Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know something about Bible Societies and I can tell you that anyone incompetent enough to put Jehovah Witneses on a list of "Bible" printers (since their mutilation is in no sense a Bible) is in no position to judge the scholarship of the Orthodox Jewish Bible, which is ubiquitious on the web and certainly doesn't need Wikipedia for advertising. To say the website is "sloppy" is a smokescreen for thinly disguised prejudice against messianic believers or their institutions such as Bible Societies specializing in widely distributed Yiddish, Russian, English and Hebrew translationa of Holy Scripture, i.e., afii.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredeee (talkcontribs) 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredee, this has nothing to do with prejudice against Messianics. It's a simple fact that the article is about non-partisan Bible societies (which, of course, would exclude the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society for the same reason it excludes yours). You are right in pointing out that the Watchtower does not belong in the definition. You are wrong in thinking this somehow allows your own project. Oh, and for the record, that web site of yours is NOT artistic. It may not be fixable for Wikipedia standards, but it still needs a lot of work. At least clean up the typos.Tim (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has been an observer of this page for some time, I need to say something. The editors need to take responsibility for the fact that in their incompetence they allowed the Jehovah Witness cult to be listed for months and months and months and did nothing about it. With incompetence so egregious how can they then expect us to take their word that this AFII site is unartistic and not up to the high standards of the editors. What high standards do editors have who allow cults to list on a Bible Society page? Does anyone understand the degree of incompetence we are talking about here? I don't think so. Gilbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertbetter (talkcontribs) 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. As one who has been an observer of this page for some time, your first and only contribution to Wikipedia is to make personal attacks against editors who have been working to improve Wikipedia by making thousands of contributions. The editors here are not asking you or anyone to take our word for anything. Go to the site. The link is in the history. It plainly fails WP:RS. Furthermore it's a little hard for anyone who has spent more than say, oh, ten minutes editing Wikipedia not to suspect that you're probably Mr. Goble using a new account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert Goble, please refrain from off topic attacks (I'm addressing you here because you keep coming here under different aliases). The talk page is for the benefit of the article. As the introduction clearly states:

"A Bible society is a non-profit organization (usually ecumenical in makeup) devoted to translating, publishing, distributing the Bible at affordable costs and advocating its credibility and trustworthiness in contemporary cultural life. Traditionally Bible Society editions contain Scripture, without any notes or commentary; but in recent decades this principle has been relaxed somewhat, and such editions typically have what is generally accepted to be "non-sectarian" notes on alternate translations of words, or variations in the different available manuscripts." -- emphasis added.

I've looked at your "Orthodox Jewish Bible" and it's so sectarian that the entire paraphrase is one long awkward commentary note with nothing useful to say. It's unreadable and doesn't add any value or information. Having done Bible translation in the past, and having worked extensively with United Bible Societies materials, I can say quite certainly that your version does not qualify for placement in the specific subject matter for this page. You'll also recall that I DID add your version in Messianic Bible Translations, which are specific sectarian versions. Although as a translator I dislike your version, as a writer I find it highly unartistic, as a Wikipedia editor I HAVE added your version to the page appropriate for it. No one is trying to hold anything against you or to promote another sect. You'll recall that I also removed the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society from this page because it is ALSO sectarian (although their Bible is far less awkward than yours, and they are at least more honest in which religion they are trying to represent). However, I would defend the Watchtower's New World Translation's placement on other pages, including an entire page devoted to it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free classified ads collection. Your version deserves mention in some pages and not in others. The New World Translation deserves mention in some pages and not in others. Heck, my favorite Revised Standard Version deserves mention in some pages and not in others. That's just the way it is.

But please DO fix your own web page. At least correct the spelling.Tim (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tim, you DID remove the Jehovah Witness mutilation AFTER you were publically called on the carpet about it over a period of several weeks, so let's not take CREDIT for the wrong we got CAUGHT doing. (This is like a hit-and-run driver taking credit for stopping his car when the pursuing policeman pulls him over). You show, Tim, your incompetence all too clearly by that monumental editorial Bible misjudgment. The people at the Lausanne Conference and the PhD's who have reviewed the various language translations of the AFII Bible Society would never in a hundred years make the mistake YOU made (putting a mutilation produced by a Cult with a doctored non-translation supporting their lethal mind-control heresy in a Bible Society list). So it is safe to say that it is time for you to resign your "arts" pontifications and sophmoric spelling critiques and other blather. Just sit in the car quietly and let the "police" of public opinion indict you for the bouquet you have thrown the David Koresh crowd and the hit-and-run disservice you have done to the world of Bible translation. GILBERTBETTER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertbetter (talkcontribs) 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gobel -- weeks, you say? I think I popped in here about the time you did (under the Gobel alias). Or at least it's the first time I paid much attention to the page. Is your version better than the New World Translation? Actually, no. It's more Christian, perhaps -- but it doesn't claim to be, does it? It claims to be Jewish. So, then, your version is just as deceptive, and in fact I would argue that it is more so.Tim (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see if we understand your logic, Tim. You were listing the Yehovah Witness Bible Publishers under the non-Bible Society category and you were responsible for this as the "editor." But you refused to list AFII Bible Publishers under the same rubric because it is deceptive, you say, to call a Bible "Jewish." Okay, let's deconstruct your editorial logic. We'll start with a short letter, the next to the last in the canon. Yehudah (Jude) was written by one of the Zekenim of the Messianic Edat Bnei Yisroel in Yerushalayim, most conservative scholars agree, and is early and authoritative, having been written by Yehudah, one of the brothers of Ya'akov, who himself was one of the "Ammudei Hakehillah" (Pillars of the Kehillah) in the early Second Temple Judaism days of the Kehillah of Moshiach in Yerushalayim. Ya'akov died in 62 C.E. al kiddish Hashem for the sake of his Martyr's Eidus (Witness of Testimony) as an emissary of the Zera Dovid Moshiach and as an eye-witness to the Techiyas HaMoshiach. Both of these were half-brothers of Moshiach and, like Moshiach, could indeed claim King Dovid as their direct ancestor. When Jude refers to the "faith once for all delivered to the Kadoshim," which is to say, the body of objective truth which has been handed down as Massorah (universally binding, authorized Jewish teaching of the Zekenim of Israel), that is, Massorah Hazekenim, Authoritative Jewish Teaching of the Elders of Israel to be passed down inviolate, you, Tim, are saying that it is deceptive to call any such 1st Century document or Bible translation "Jewish," while on the other hand, it is or was permissible, under your editorial watch, to list the Jehovah Witness doctored mutilation with other Bible distribution sources. You say "I would even argue that you are even MORE deceptive." Will, Tim, you go ahead and argue that but I believe the court of general readership of this article will not go along with you and they will conclude that you are and have been in error. And we will then wait to see if you have the honesty and integrity and good faith to admit your mistake (surely we can agree that we all make mistakes) and correct it. GILBERT BETTER alias Phil Goble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertbetter (talkcontribs) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Better Goble, I didn't put the Jehovah's Witnesses in there. I took it out, after you pointed it out. I didn't even pay attention to the page before the issue of your deceptive conversion group came in and you objected to what you perceived to be another deceptive conversion group. Rather than allow both groups in, I made sure that both groups were removed, since deceptive conversion groups are outside of the scope of an article on non-sectarian Bible societies. My only point is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are well known, and they freely advertise that they are a separate sect from mainstream Christianity. In fact, they will insist upon it. Granted, they are theologically Arian, but in the fourth century MOST of Christianity was theologically Arian, and the Nicene formulation only gained traction through time. By orthodox Christian standards they are heretics, but at least it is a Christian heresy. Your own sect is either mainstream Christian theologically (the Trinitarian Messianics) or is a tritheistic heresy (the "Compound Unity" Messianics). Regardless, whether your sect is a Christian orthodox sect or a Christian heretical sect, it is still a Christian phenomenon. Judaism has a different historical self definition that does not include New Testament belief. That doesn't make Messianism wrong. But it DOES make Messianism DIFFERENT. That is, if Jesus is the Messiah (however you choose to spell it), then "Orthodox Judaism" is wrong in rejecting him, nu? Well, then, how (by the normative meaning of the word "Orthodox Judaism") can a Bible containing a New Testament be called the "Orthodox Jewish Bible"? That's like the New World Translation being labelled the "Roman Catholic Bible." It isn't, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the decency, and the integrity, of not advertising it as such. When it comes to deception, then, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is NOT deceptive in comparison to your own sect. Even if their theology were flat wrong and yours flat right, at least they have the decency to be proud of their own differences and unique identity! My exclusion of them on this page was not because they are deceptive (as your own sect is), but because they are sectarian (as your sect is also). That's the basis. It has nothing to do with their theology, their rightness or wrongness -- it is merely their uniqueness that excludes them.Tim (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, as everyone (but you) knows, our faith is a sect of Judaism called "The Way" or "HaDerech." Do I have to quote the verses from the book of Acts to you? If you are a follower of the religion in the book of acts it is self-described there as a "sect." What you are saying here is completely nonsensical, defending Jehovah Witnesses. The Jewishness of the Bible should not have to be documented for you...what planet are you living on? Read Edith Shaeffer's book "Christianity is Jewish." Get some basic knowledge. What in the world are you thinking? There were many "judaisms" at the time of Jesus. Are faith is not a sect of Buddism. It is a sect of Judiasm. Paul uses that term "sect" twice in the book of Acts. I don't have time to argue this any more. If anyone thinks that the Bible is not Jewish and should not be presented in a Jewish way as I have done and to do so is deceptive is so far from reality that it is impossible to reason with them. The Bible IS Jewish and the Bible IS Orthodox and that is true whether you think so or not, and if anyone wants to say that they are Jewish or they are Orthodox and they want to throw the Bible out or the New Testament, then they are simply deceived and wrong. Let G-d's word be true and every man a liar. Do I have to quote that verse to you, too. I give up. I sign off. Apparently you have unilateral authority here to include cults or do whatever you want. Phil Goble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredeee (talkcontribs) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for the last time, I took the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society OFF the page. I didn't put it on. I didn't even SEE it before it came up on the talk page. Take care.Tim (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Tim, in conclusion, neither you nor any of the other editors of this page want to take responsibility for the fact that a malicious cult was able to list here for many months without anyone doing anything about it and that this occurred under the editorial watch of these editors? And to protect yourself you want to leave the subject by scapegoating our translation and our Bible distributing organization and by refusing to let us list even under non-Bible Society listings? And this is your idea of fair treatment? I will close my case with the following. There is a sect of Hasidim in Brooklyn who claim their Rebbe is God and that they are STILL part of Orthodox Judaism, demanding to have it BOTH ways, as it were. This is basically what is going on in the Temple with Paul and James in Acts 21, the two of them wanting to have it both ways. Don't blame me for this. I didn't write the Bible. Don't accuse me of starting a sect. I am an ordained minister with a major denomination, and no way would I be permitted to do that, even if I wanted to, which I don't. The fact is, Paul submits his Gospel to a Torah observant Temple-attending (Luke 24:53) synagogue based (James 2:2, see Greek NT) sect (Ac 24:14) of Judaism who live a Torah-observant life in Jerusalem even though they are Spirit-filled believers (Ac 2:4) and in Acts chapter 21 Paul submits to their authority and goes into the Temple to show that he too is an "Orthodox" Jew and has not repudiated his faith (Ro 9:1-5), preaching the Gospel in shul every Shabbos, circumcizing the Jewish boy (with a Jewish mother) Timothy (Ac 16:3) and preaching in Shul every Shabbos as long as he was permitted to do so. In Romans Paul built up messianic Torah observant Jews who were weak in justifying faith (Ro 5:1) in believing (Ro 15:13) that Moshiach is the Mesharet Bnei HaMilah (Ro 15:8) just as some uncircumcised were weak in justifying faith (Ro 5:1) in terms of the righteousness "of faith that Abraham had in his uncircumcision (Ro 4:11). The hard center of his "Christianity" (an unknown concept in the first Century) was this sect of Judaism (Ro 9:1-5) with its "orthodox" (straight teaching is the meaning of the word "orthodox") teaching. So no one is being deceived by our translation and we are not members of a weird group. This sets the record straight, I hope, and will require no more spilled ink from me. Phil Goble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertbetter (talkcontribs) 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gobel, if you DO want to kibbitz some more, please do it on my talk page so it doesn't keep cluttering this article. Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misstatement of Catholic belief[edit]

Catholics traditionally believed that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of the tradition of Catholic Church teachings. [1] This changed at Vatican II which authorised ecumenical Bible translations.

The earlier version of this text, cited in "Catholic section" above, was more accurate. Ecumenical Bible translations by definition have input from Catholic Bible scholars, i.e. are informed by Catholic tradition. And Catholics do not believe that ecumenical Bible translations are magically perspicuous unlike non-Catholic translations; just more likely to be accurate on the whole. That is, even an ecumenical Bible translation can be easily misinterpreted if not read within the context of Catholic tradition. --Jim Henry 17:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoting Pope Gregory[edit]

it says Pope Gregory XVI in his 1844 encyclical Inter Praecipuas condemned both bible societies and "the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures", and subsequently Catholics did not officially participate in the Society.

But later in the encyclial he says "Because of the continued deceptions of heretics, this rule was further restricted and supplemented by a declaration of Benedict XIV: for the future the only vernacular translations which may be read are those which "are approved by the Apostolic See" or at least were published "with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic authors." so he allows some vernauclar translationst but the article doesnt make it seem that way. There were already translations in the vernacular for example the Doay RheimsIlikerabbits! (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bible society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]