Talk:English Jubilee 2000 Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
[edit] Version help request
I'm not sure that the Jubilee 2000 Bible of Russell M. Stendal is the same as the African Jubilee Bible. Help! Brusselsshrek 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV of article
Some serious Bible scholars need to look not only at this translation, but also at this article, which seems to be more about advertising this translation as well as Christianity in general. I removed the KJV version of John 3:16 since it not only has nothing to do with this translation, but oops! was from the KJV word for word. Tomertalk 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your POV criticisms, but I fail to see the point about the KJV quote being 'word for word' from the KJV. Sure, it was irrelevant, but it being word for word has no bearing -- KJV is not copyrighted. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hate to resurrect a conversation, but, to the contrary, the King James Bible is indeed copyrighted, by the Crown, in the United Kingdom. This means that if the Jubilee does indeed overly infringe, it could be ineligible for publication there. On a side note, this article appears to be referring to two completely different Bibles. The first link cited deals with a Bible which includes commentary and pictures intended to appeal to Black American churchgoers. The second link cited refers to a 16th century Spanish translation of the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek (presumably Protestant, as translating directly from Hebrew and Greek was not permitted in Catholicism at that time), which has now been translated into English and compared with the contemporaneous English translation of Tyndale, another 16th century Protestant reformer. I have to admit: I have no idea why an English translation of a 16th century Spanish Protestant translation is made for an American Blacks, with or without friendly commentary and images. Though I only have the three cites to go on, I think that the Black American Jubilee Bible and the Translated From the Spanish Jubilee Bible are not the same thing. Quite possibly someone with more knowledge of Biblical scholarship could touch this up and seperate the articles if this is the case? Arrogant Papist 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, I wrote the last item while waiting for the third link, www.bibles.com, to upload. The American Black Jubilee Bible isn't based on the King James Bible. It IS the King James Bible, and is advertised as such (granted, 'King James Version' could hypothetically be any one of the various permenutations, but can't be the English-translation-of-Spanish-Bible, which advertised itself as published with a page-by-page comparison of itself with the King James Bible). These definately refer to two different works, and I recommend the creation of an article for the Spanish Bible. And since the American Black Bible is clearly not a new translation, I suggest it is either merged with the article King James Bible or deleted.. Arrogant Papist 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
