Talk:List of English Bible translations

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

Organization of list[edit]

I'd like to suggest keeping all bibles categorized in a single list by date. There should be a collumn or three for contents (OT, NT, Ap, and portions thereof), but the scripture should all be sorted by date. Also, Many newer versions have trademark codes (NIV, NLT, etc.) These should be used for 'code'. In cases where the Bible is not well known and translated/edited by a single person, the person's last name should be the identifying code.

I have a list of 450 potential bible translations, of which I can point to freely available sources for about 150 versions. With the current organization of this list, It's too much effort to try to manage wikipedia with my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey (talkcontribs) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orthodox Study Bible removed[edit]

The Orthodox Study Bible, in it's currently released version with New Testament & Psalms contains an exact copy of the New King James Version translation and therefore should not be included in a list of "English Bible Translations" because it is not a unique translation.

There is an upcoming version that will contain the old testament. This version is supposed to contain both some text that will be revised from the NKJV with modifications based on the LXX. Some of it will contain completely new translation from the LXX (primarly books no included in Protestant "canon" and therefore no NKJV exists). Whenever this work is completed then it would be proper to add it to the list in this article. --Diablorex 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bible now exists. I have a copy.Tim (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is this listed in the Complete section, when, as admitted in the entry, it's not? Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Contrariwise, why is the Orthodox Study Bible in the Partial section? Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge into List of English Bible translations.

Stale merge and Modern English Bible translations seems pretty fleshed out to be turned into a list. New disucssion would be beneficial if a merge is to take place. -- DarkCrowCaw 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The modern English translations article exists only as a single inconsistently maintained list. Unification into a single list would provide less duplicate forks for the same subject. There is no need for a separate list of modern translations. Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose there isn't a need for two pages, but if one should go the Modern English Bible translations page shouldn't be it. List of English Bible translations seems only to be organized alphabetically, with less explanatory information. Fralupo (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
History of the bible is not a list of the bible. I'm very interested in both subjects but they are completely different. Merging a list of every translation into a historical article invites censorship. Any translation of the complete text of either the new or old testament is a significant event and deserves notice. Keep the list separate from the history. More data on the different items in the list would be nice (like language vernacular, geo-location of origin, readability information, etc. )Mikey (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greek New Testament[edit]

There are several references to some "Greek New Testament", which its Wikipedia article clarifies nowadays normally means the Nestle-Aland version. However, there is also a specific reference to a "Nestle-Aland text of the Greek New Testament", so this must be standarized: "Greek New Testament" or "Nestle-Aland"? or are these two separate sources? Aldo L (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New King James[edit]

While the NKJV may have been originally designed to be by the Majority Text it is clearly a TR based text, with Majority stuff in the footnotes. There are a couple of distinctions from the AV TR, having to do with stuff like punctuation, with led to a difference like Hebrews 3:16. I am changing the text to say Received Text.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poetic versions[edit]

Aside from passages which were verse in the original, should poetic versiopns of Scripture be included here? I strongly think they should be in a separate article.Pete unseth (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition to the list?[edit]

Would it be alright to add the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition to the list? In Citer (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it should be added.Pete unseth (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

which translations to include?[edit]

I created an article on a Bible translation that is not so well known. Another editor objected on ground of not being notable. That editor suggested I include it here, instead. Recently, an editor removed some translations from this article on grounds of not being notable. I can see both arguments. But I would like to find ways to refer to translations that are not quite notable enough for articles, but are still notable enough to be listed here. Any ideas from the rest of you? Pete unseth (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does the scope of this article include non-notable entries, in contrast to usual policy on list articles? If yes, what is the threshold for inclusion, a WP:RS? Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the article does include some translations that are not notable. But the article can and should be as broad as possible. One alternative is arguments about some people's favorite, though obscure, translation. Pete unseth (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that someone recently added the "Woman's Bible" to the list. I am not certain it belongs on the list, since (as noted in its WP article), Biblical scholars have never accepted it as a scholarly work. It additionally contains commentary that is not part of the Bible, and intentional mistranslations (such as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" translated to "Mother, Father and Son").

In my opinion, Bible translations that are not accepted by scholars, and/or contain intentional mistranslations, either do not belong on this list, or should be noted as such. And there is precedent: we previously agreed that the "Queen James Version" should be removed because it fell afoul of this. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if we have agreed that article scope is as broad as possible, and we'll accept any translation whether notable or not, there's not really a good argument against including such a ridiculous and atrocious "Bible" as the one you mention, is there. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not arguing notability; I don’t believe that’s pertinent here. Rather, what qualifies as an “English translation of the Bible”? To me, if scholars or experts do not consider it a valid English translation, it doesn’t fit the definition required to be on this page, or at minimum should be noted as such. And regarding “as broad as possible”...I would argue that if you are so broad that your list does not match the title of the page, then you are too broad. And yes, I recognize this is a potentially circular argument: I just think we need to define some limits here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a translation and it certainly is not a complete translation. It's a book which uses original translations as it presents it's argument, just two or three verses at a time. The full text can be found here It should be removed from this page.Dirkwillems (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on what scholar you are talking about because some scolors say the New World Translation is not a good or accurate translation and it on this list. Doremon764 (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about King James 21st Century?[edit]

Please... (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add a column on which book groups are included?[edit]

As the preface states, what is necessary for "completion" differs according to the translator(s) and/or the religious group. It may be useful, therefore, to add a column that states which books (or book groups) are included in the translation. The NIV and CSB, for example, contains the Tanakh and New Testament, while the NRSV contains these as well as the Deuterocanon/OT Apocrypha. For the sake of succinctness, I'd propose a simple division into OT, Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, NT, and notes for any special cases. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint[edit]

These two types of Bibles should be on this Page at least the English Version of them. Including the Mormon (LDS) Bible + Book of Mormon that has all those stories together.Doremon764 (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Book of Mormon clearly does not qualify as a Bible, as even LDS adherents consider it a separate text; and the English LDS Bible simply is the Authorized KJV, which is already on this page. The other two are more interesting questions. First, on the LXX: do translations that are considered purely scholarly in nature qualify for this page? I am unaware of any English translations of the LXX that are not either already listed, or are considered scholarly rather than mainstream. And on the Samaritan Pentateuch: it contains only the Torah, not the Tanakh, but then again the Samaritan sect does not recognize the Tanakh. So, does it fall under the heading of "Bible"?
On the balance I would vote "yes" for inclusion of LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch; "no" for LDS. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern Aramaic to English translations section[edit]

I decided to boldly move the section from Aramaic original New Testament theory to this page. I believe it should be kept here separately in order for redirects to lead properly to this section. Veverve (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The column for denominations contains information that is too broad for some translations. A list that contains three or more denominations means the translation is not specific to a denomination. For Alter's, I am removing "Zionism" since it is not a denomination. I am weeding some others, also. If there are solid reasons to replace some, please do so. Pete unseth (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latest translations[edit]

This list is missing The Interpreted New Testament (2020) and The First Nations Version (2021). -- (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Original Bible for Modern Readers" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Original Bible for Modern Readers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The Original Bible for Modern Readers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]