Talk:World English Bible

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

Bible Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isn't this Bible completed? The whole thing is up to be read on YouVersion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.85.1 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WEB is indeed complete, albeit subject to occasional minor updates. It's also available in several other Bible software formats, including SWORD. DFH (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads:

The World English Bible follows the American Standard Version's unusual decision to translate the Tetragrammaton, but updates "Jehovah" to be "Yahweh".

That's not unusual, that's standard practice, isn't it? (Whether it's a good decision is a different question.) --Singkong2005 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone corrected "translate" to "transliterate." It is unusual, because most translations translate YHWH to "Lord" or "God," rather than transliterating to Jehovah or Yahweh. NTK 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that they use Yahweh instead of Jehovah, but do they change other Biblical names to more accurately reflect their original pronunciation (e.g., Yeshua instead of Jesus)? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Yahweh" is not an "updated" transliteration of "Jehovah"; "Jehovah" (or "Yehowah") is a transliteration of the normal form found in standard Hebrew Bibles. "Yahweh" (or "Jahveh") on the other hand is based on speculation as to what the pronunciation of the Name would have been if it were pronounced. On linguistic grounds it is fairly well grounded speculation, but since there is no underlying text in Hebrew with those vowels in the Name, it is not a "transliteration". Whether it makes sense to use either "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in the WEB is obviously the sort of thing one could argue about until five minutes after the Rapture. --Haruo (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any idea when this will be finished? Or if any progress is being made? From this [1] it looks like no work has been done on it in about a year.Josh Millman 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WEB is complete, albeit subject to occasional minor updates. DFH (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not make clear who, exactly, is doing this translation. Isn't that important? john k (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The side panel makes it clear that the editor in chief is Michael Johnson. DFH (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly: what is the evidence that this Bible translation, being pursued by, from what I can gather from the website, an obscure man of uncertain qualifications with little outside help, is notable? Are there any reliable sources that discuss this project? As it stands now, the article seems to basically be sourced to the ebible website itself. There is no evidence that it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and the article has existed for 7 years now. john k (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor (Michael Johnson) is in good standing with

Wycliffe Bible Translators, and has many years experience of working as a translator in Papua New Guinea. DFH (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

See also Papua New Guinea Scriptures. DFH (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WEB is notable to those engaged in the task of publishing the Bible world wide, especially in digital formats. The fact that it is a copyright-free public domain modern translation means that it can be readily used without having to go through the procedure of making formal requests for a distribution license. The WEB is available on many different platforms and applications. Example: SWORD format, see [2]. DFH (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is not "an obscure man of uncertain qualifications". He works for

YWAM and is based at the University of the Nations in Kona, Hawaii. DFH (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I could readily add further references to secondary sources. For now, at least, I've established that I have sufficient knowledge to indicate that I'm in a position to provide more details along these lines. I have been a Wikipedian since 2005, and I am independent of the WEB website and its ministry. DFH (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So he works for an unaccredited educational institution. That is anything but impressive.

talk) 10:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

“At this point in time, with the World English Bible and its derivatives all firmly in the Public Domain, copyleft is not an option. We cannot and will not use a copyleft license, because those don't work without a copyright. ‘Copyrighted’ and ‘Public Domain’ are opposites. Nothing can be both at the same time. We did consider such a license at the beginning of this project, and rejected it, because it does not realistically offer any advantage over the protections we already have with a digital signature and a trademark protection on the name.” [[3]]

The summary box refers to the Robinson Pierpont, but this is not discussed in the article and the preface to the translation only says "majority text". Is there a citation that refers to the Robinson Pierpont in particular? It also doesn't exactly make sense as a derivative of the ASV, which predates Robinson Pierpont, unless the WEB was specifically changed in each instance where the Greek base of the ASV differs from RP. Dirkwillems (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]