Talk:Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

suggestions for improvement will be gladly appreciated Davidamos (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article seems like a reasonably good start. You'll want to modify some of the tone, so that it comes across in a more neutral manner and less like a promotion or commendation for this edition. (I can try a few edits and see if you can live with those, even if they're not your own opinion.) Also, you'll need to find some

For sources, I couldn't find a non-trivial mention in Google scholar. I did find this mention: "Edited by Jacob O. Meyer, of the Assemblies of Yahweh, this translation is basically the ASV, using "Yahweh" and "Elohim" for God; "Yahshua" for Jesus." This won't help with notability but it does raise the question, if the edition is the same as the ASV except for these words, shouldn't the article state that more clearly? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As HG wrote above, this article comes across in a non-neutral manner and like a promotion or commendation for this translation. This is not a trivial point. To be considered noteworthy by Wikipedia standards, the topic should be cited by at least one non-trivial, third party source. Currently, it does not add anything of substance to the Wikipedia article

Sacred name Bibles. The least that could be done is to quote some passages from the translation to show readers the results of the distinctive translation principles followed. Pete unseth (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I searched through the history of edits and see that there have been some edits that deleted huge amounts of text. I do not understand what the issues were between the competing editors, but I suspect that a neutral point of view has been obscured. I respectfully request that the article be expanded, with serious consideration of reinstating some of the former material. Let there be more information. Pete unseth (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the ongoing edits and reverts on this article, but user Jayjg seems to be too eager to slash other people's work. Some sections need to be trimmed, but I plead for more specific, targeted cuts. Pete unseth (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by In Citer said the translation used "the words that would have appeared in the original texts, rather than the words employed by translators." This would apply to words like "Yahweh" and "Messiah", which are transliterated (imitating the sounds) from Hebrew into English. But it would not apply to some of the other example cited in the paragraph, such as "torture stake" and "assembly", where the translator tried to give the meaning, not the sound of the original language. The paragraph would be clearer if this paragraph was reworked, possibly by rearranging the order of the sentences. I hope my rewrite suggestion reflects a correct reading of the original intent by In Citer. If I have totally missed the intended meaning, that is also a reason to revisit and improve the paragraph to clarify the intended meaning. Pete unseth (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will be changing the article accordingly - please do not undo the changes In Citer (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the large number of blocks and quotes to be distracting, and at times redundant. I think it would be helpful if somebody reduced the amount of specially formatted quotations. Pete unseth (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still need some details which I intend on finding out before uploading the infobox such as copyright dates, and changing image caption but here it is so far:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by In Citer (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth having a paragraph about Aramaic Primacy in this article as the SSBE prefers to use the Hebrew equivalent of terms for this reason. In Citer (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some history behind the SSBE. I was supposed to be adding, as I mentioned above, a section on Aramaic Primacy, but got side-tracked. Let me know what you think In Citer (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies too much on primary sources from Meyer and the Assemblies, when as a Wikipedia article it should be a summary of what independent scholars wrote about the book. —PaleoNeonate – 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does, indeed, rely on sources from Meyer, but when quoting him that is fine. A bigger problem is that it does not cite any source for too much of the content. I want to keep the article, but it cannot be an advertisment for the Meyer and his work. Pete unseth (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried. Editor2020 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete unseth and Editor2020 have helped to improve this article. I hope to improve it further. I've seen that the article lacks primary sources. I will have a look for some. Also, I want to improve it in other ways but if you have any suggestions, please let me know. I do do some