Talk:Bible society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To do:

• note on Bible societies' formerly mostly reprinting traditional public domain translations, later doing their own new translations
• more detail on gradually relaxing of the principle of printing the Bible "without note or comment"
• influence of Bible societies in dropping the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha from Protestant Bible editions

Here are some notes on the above:

• note on Bible societies' formerly mostly reprinting traditional public domain translations, later doing their own new translations

I don't know of other Bible Societies, but ABS has published the KJV for years along with the NIV, RSV, and NASB - plus their own GNT and CEV.

• more detail on gradually relaxing of the principle of printing the Bible "without note or comment"

I'm not sure on this.

• Influence of Bible societies in dropping the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha from Protestant Bible editions

According to [1], the Apocrypha was removed by the British Bible Society in 1827. ABS voted to remove the Apocrypha in 1880. [2] . However, if you go to Bibles.com you can buy a Bible with the Apocrypha.

Hoshie/Crat 02:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, those dates will help some. I had read (but cannot remember where) that Protestants used to customarily print the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha in a separate section of their Bibles for several centuries after they quit believing they were inspired scripture, and that it was primarily the influence of the early Bible societies that led to dropping these books from Protestant Bible editions (even in commercial publishers' editions, not done by Bible societies). --Jim Henry | Talk 19:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've found another source on this:

The Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deutero writings from their canons, classifying them as "Apocrypha". Presbyterians and Calvinists in general, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition, and owing to their influence the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1826 to refuse to distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha. Since that time the publication of the deuterocanonicals as an appendix to Protestant Bibles has almost entirely ceased in English-speaking countries.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Canon of the Old Testament" (George J. Reid, 1908) [3]

--Jim Henry 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] catholicism

Catholicism Catholicism Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Church teaching, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible(Catholic Propaganda. Catholics NO evangelize). In some cases free distribution of Bibles has simply led to these copies being used for profane purposes.(This is too much derogatory toward evangelicals,and MUST TO BE DELETED JUST NOW!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbautista (talk • contribs) .

I'll delete that last sentence, but I'm reverting all your other changes. For the record, you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and I could get you blocked again. You have been reverted countless times by some eight different users. Do not reinsert the material. Melchoir 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable as it is an unsourced statement. BigDT 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Section

The statement is partly true: "Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Catholic Church teachings, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible."

That is the teaching of Catholicism, but most of the Protestant societies I'm aware of (Wycliffe, etc.) don't "simply give away the text." There is a lot of training and missionary work as part of the translating effort. Perhaps this can be reworded so as not to be POV and more accurate.

This "simply giving away the text of the Bible" may be more accurate about Protestant Bible societies' activities in the past than in the present, I suspect. --Jim Henry 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)