[WikiEN-l] Bible websites

[David Goodman]

The current practice in many academic publications on religion  for
non specialists seems usually to use the NIV,  and often add the KJ V
if substantially different.

If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV

I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>