[WikiEN-l] Bible websites

[Charles Matthews]

Guettarda wrote:
> Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
> pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
> The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation.  So
> while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using
> the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911.   It's hard to
> read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in
> German East Africa.
>   
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse? In 
the case I had this morning, at [[Gangraena]] (title of a book), where 
the word itself is in the (Greek) New Testament at 2 Timothy 2:17 and is 
being used as a book title in 1646, the point is certainly to track the 
allusion as it would have had an impact on the readership in England 
(mostly). In other words the point of the link is to allow the reader of 
the article to see that Gangraena for a KJV reader renders as "canker". 
And another interesting point is that (and I hadn't appreciated this) 
you are probably supposed to read in verse 16 as well: "But shun profane 
and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness./ And 
their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and 
Philetus."  There would have been a few English readers at the time who 
would have preferred the Geneva Bible or even the Tremellius translation 
(as Milton is supposed to have, but I suppose for the OT).

Anyway I like, in principle, the idea, of having as default a link to a 
Wikisource page offering a menu of different translations or editions 
(free text). Which could presumably link to various commentaries. All 
done to an agreed template. I don't think this should be imposed, but 
available.

Charles