Wikisource talk:WikiProject Bible

Template

I've added a new template on the en Wikipedia: {{KJV-ref|Genesis|1|1}}. There are lots of little things to work on (see its "todo" on the talk page). Can anyone get it to redirect to the specific verse? --Brazucs 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at my sandbox to see how it works in action. The actual template I used it Template:Test. I'm sure if you just look at what I did, you can make the necessary changes over on WP. If you need more help, feel free to drop me a line.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this might not be needed now. I'ven noticed you've made changes on WP and it seems like what you want to do with the template and what I did are not the same thing.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Septuagint

w:User:AndreasJS has downloaded two versions of the Septuagint:

• Rahlf's edition from Ralph Hancock
• the edition of the Church of Greece from the archdiocese of Crete

He has pointed out some minor differeences between editions. (Obadiah is Abdiu in the Rahlf ed. and Obdiu in the Church ed.) Does anyone know of any reasons we should prefer one version over the other? Also I was thinking if anyone who is knowledgable could setup some interwiki links then others would be able to navigate more confidently. Or if it is compilcated maybe we need to make a map to visualize where things are equivalent and where they are not so we can make some decisions on how to handle it.--BirgitteSB 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's our problem with the Septuagint. It was made a bit over two thousand years ago, by about seventy scholars. Stories as to how and why it was created vary widely. Throughout the entire history of the Septuagint, many copies were made, and great numbers of mistakes found their way into many of the texts. Which text of the Septuagint has preference is a matter of great disagreement among scholars. I imagine the Church edition would carry a lot of weight with at least some people, but it is very difficult to say which is more accurate. Fontwords 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Greek NT

IS there a standard original Greek NT text that is reliable and in the Public Domain. If there is already on Wikipedia could you link to it from here?

There are a good number of Greek NT texts available online in the public domain. There are two groups I'm aware of:

1. The "Textus Receptus" type of texts, which are the basis of the King James Bible. These texts were compiled from ancient manuscripts available in the 1500, 1600, or even 1800 hundreds depending on which text you're using. They're all about the same, with some verses added from the Latin vulgate which are not usually found in the older Greek texts.

2. The Robinson and Pierpont Greek NT text is also available online, and was compiled by Greek scholars in the last ten years or so on the basis of all the ancient Greek manuscripts currently known. They placed it in the public domain and many use it as their standard Greek text.

There are more too, including that of Westcott & Hort, probably the most criticized, and the most well-known.

66.213.124.149 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)that is, Fontwords 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets make an index!

Can I suggest the creation of an index page to help people find what they want? --H2g2bob 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Obadiah 1:1

I see we have Obadiah 1:1 up. Shall we do any other verses of the Bible. Would anyone mind if I began Obadiah 2:2?Fontwords 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Dumb question. I was navigating wrong. Fontwords 16:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

adding section markers

The following can be used to add section markers through-out a text if it already has {{verse}}:

 pattern: /^{{verse\|chapter=([0-9]*)\|verse=([0-9]*)}} *(.*)$/mg
 match:   {{verse|chapter=$1|verse=$2}} <section begin="$1:$2"/>$3<section end="$1:$2"/>

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible goals for 2012

This is probably more than a bit presumptuous on my part, but I have started a discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Goals for 2013? in the English wikipedia asking what if any sort of goals we might be able to reasonably set for the next year, in wikipedia and other WF sites as well. I figured the wikipedia probably gets more attention, which is why I started the discussion there. But I would be very interested in seeing any input regarding what the editors here think might be the areas here most in need or meriting additional attention. Maybe, and at this point it is just a maybe, maybe we might be able to get some input on such topics if we have some idea what it is we really need to work on. Anyway, I would welcome any input anyone here might have. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, 2012 is up, but for 2013, how about getting all the Bibles available on archive.org here in Index: form? Božidar 09:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Taverner Bible

Just added an Index for the Taverner Bible. Would anyone like to help out? Božidar 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

I feel there is a lot of improvement that could be done to Bible and related pages. I've also posted this discussion on the Scriptorium since it gets more traffic. Here are the improvements that I was thinking of doing:

• Remove the colourful tables at Bible and replace it with a normal list like every other translations page
• Overhaul {{biblecontents}} so that it includes all books and doesn't default to the Protestant canon
• Move Tanakh to Bible (Mechon Mamre) and have Tanakh redirect to Bible#Tanakh
• Move Bible (Wikisource) to the Translations namespace
• Make sure that all Bible versions have a title or redirect in the format Bible (Version) so that {{biblecontents}} will work - currently Tanakh, Biblioþēce, and The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha are missing this
• Disambiguate further Bible (King James) and Bible (Authorized Version) since both of them are authorized version and both of them are King James

Those are just some things I thought of while looking at the state of things currently, and I wanted to run them by the community before I start making huge changes :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have brought up the first point again at Talk:Bible#Page formatting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible changes

One other thing which might be possible here is to verify all the public domain Bible versions and paraphrases out there on wikisource, for the purpose of eventually putting together a "parallel Bible," showing one separate, consistent, column for each translation, perhaps similar to the six version parallel New Testament here, which does the same thing for the New Testament. That version also managed to include some versions still under copyright at the time, and I think, if we got together as many as possible of the public domain versions of the books of the Bible, including any separate editions for individual books, that might be very, very useful. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is against current WS policy (see Wikisource:Annotations#Banned items) but a parallel Bible may be a good candidate for Wikibooks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably is against policy to put the parallel Bible here, but if it were to be constructed here, by, basically, proofreading the individual texts, that would make it much easier to get the information together for assembly at wikibooks, wikiversity, or elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I think it might make sense to merge Wikisource:WikiProject Bible dictionaries into this project, and maybe establish the broader group as dealing not only with Bible texts in and of themselves, but also Bible dictionaries, or other reference works directly relating to the Bible, and, possibly, Biblical commentaries and other such materials directly relating to the Bible. I know in wikipedia there are standard procedures in place for such matters, but am not sure if such exist here. If such a merger were to be done, along with, possibly, adding subprojects for the various books of the Bible individually, including texts and commentaries, it might be possible to get, for instance, the subproject relating to Gospel of John or some similar work chosen as the Wikisource:Community collaboration. Anyway, any opinions? John Carter (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if they want to merge into this project, that's fine by me. On the other hand I don't see what the benefit of a merge would be. Biblical scholarship, unless it actually contains the full texts of the books of the Bible, don't really show up on any of the pages relevant to this project. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose change to table

Hi I would like to propose making a change to the table headings we have listing the versions of the bible. Maybe to | Name | Date | External link |. And in the | Name | column we can link directly to the main namespace or the index with {{Small scan link}}. What do you think? Jpez (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

How to properly ask for wikibible editors?

The wiki bible doesn't have very many editors. How would I(or anyone else) properly ask knowledgeable editors to consider joining that project(the translation is at Translation:Bible, but the wikiproject page is not updated as far as I know[but I don't remember where it is] because as far as I know, editors don't go to that page[and even work done by editors who have left isn't on there as far as I know]). JustinCB (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You can ask at the Scriptorium. Maybe you might spark some interest there. Jpez (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)