PLease stop editing biblical quotatons, changing them from plain English New International Version to older, less accessible King James Version. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 17:04, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I also ask why are you changing bible quotations? - Mark Ryan 17:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The modern bibles are full of errors and use corrupt manuscripts. It's also well known that many modern translations subsequent to the KJV were made in part to generate money. In order to generate a copyright these modern versions add or remove considerably from God's preserved words in the King James Bible. There's actually a percentage that must be met. Have you ever counted how many new bibles there are now? Every time you turn around someone has decided we need a new improved bible... doesn't that seem odd?

You're absolutely right. The KJV is based largely on Tyndales's translation, which is one of the most reliable for all time.

All the major bibles since this have been largely his work - both the KJV and the ASV. From a copyright perspective too, using the KJV is by the far the most sensible option. 80.255

But the KJV uses "Lucifer" for a word meaning "morning star". --User:Ashibaka

The King James is more accurate in their translation of Isaiah 14:12, and the new versions openly attack the deity of Christ by changing Lucifer into morning star, so that Jesus is the one being cast into the sides of the pit for being like God, when the object of the following verses was supposed to be Lucifer. Jesus is that "Morning star" as explained in Revelation 22:16 in both new and KJV. I see no point in using a bible that openly attacks Christ for that and other reasons and am KJV only. Just my 2 cents... Thebestofall007 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

translations

Biblical translation really is a mess; they're all translations of copies of lost versions, and monks and bishops and scribes and others have all had chances to introduce political bents or alterations everywhere, so there are lots of sects and arguments disagreeing over what to trust. The only way to avoid translation distrust by the sectarians would be to keep all biblical quotations entirely out of wiki, which might be a good idea, but might leave some gaps in certain topics.

God's preserved words are most likely not a mess. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Also, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I think my point is now demonstrated. You think they aren't a mess, whereas the poster above thinks they "are full of errors and use corrupt manuscripts". I suggest there is no easy middle ground between your sectarian viewpoint and that person's, and the safest course would be to just avoid the bible entirely.

It's probably better to leave any Bible verses alone, or possible to ADD a variation if translation differences have given rise to various interpretations.

Of course, if there's a faction which has CREATED an entirely new translation just to support their own theology, then this presents a different problem. But easily solved: just say church A's theology is X, supported by this verse (and quote it) - while church B's theology is, etc. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's clearly important when quoting any biblical passage to consider the range of translations, and quote them in the context of their range of interpretations and surrounding verses. This isn't something that only wikipedia deals with, biblical scholars cope with this all the time. 209.102.127.88 19:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Right. And switching what's there, with some other translation, doesn't help. I happen to prefer RSV, but I'm not going to go around the 'pedia changing New World or King James to RSV, just because it's my fave. I say, leave it the way it was. Or ADD a second translation and COMMENT on the difference. (I've reverted a couple of done-with-no-reason swaps that JS did.) --Uncle Ed 19:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Precisely - some verses are largely the same between translations, however, where there is controversy it is custmoary to quote from a range of different versions, or at least to note that there is controvesy surrounding interpretation. It's poor form to use one or the other in the knowledge that there are other interpretations which might give different meaning.209.102.127.88 19:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And were there isn't cointroversy, the plain English version is to be preferred. Andy Mabbett 20:28, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No; the version that is used should be the most widely recognised one; this is almost always the KJV. People will recognise and understand this version most readily; using inferior "modernized" versions will do nothing but lower the tone of this encyclopaedia. 80.225.26.1

These changes are continuing; see Asexuality, Trinity, plus very PoV changes to King James Version of the Bible. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The text I just removed, by reversion, from King James Version of the Bible. appears to also be a copyright violation [1]. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why do you remove Christian regarding the non-Jewish population of Europe at the time of the Holocaust? The term describes their religious affliation, not by necessity their behavior OneVoice 13:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Christianity and anti-Semitism is there a particular section that indicates why the word Christian should not be applied to the non-Jewish population of Europe at the time of the Holocaust? OneVoice 13:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page. Most leading nazis were not Christians -- they were germanic pagan. Also, the complex connections between Christian (mostly catholic) religious intolerance and Nazi antisemitism should be discussed elsewhere.

I may be quite misinformed, but I thought that Hitler actually ran the Lutheran church. I have also read that Martin Luther's "Jews and Their Lies" was the backdrop for the Nazi persecution knows as the Crystalnaucht (sp?) -- perhaps that was a sensationalist allegation...

I guess you know what you are doing, but if you intend to change all the quotations from the Bible to the KJV, feel free but do not complain if people get angry. Pfortuny 22:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please do not, for reasons already stated. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it should be like the colour/color thing, let's not change British spelling to American or vice versa. Whichever spelling or "Bible verse" is CURRENTLY in the article, leave it alone. Do not change make a project of changing all Bible verses to KJV or anything else. There is no copyright problem, fair use allows us to quote from copyrighted translations. --Uncle Ed 15:29, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have to inform you that, sooner or later, the community will ask you to change names out of respect. The same thing happened before to User:Jesus is Lord!. I would encourage you to avoid the fight and change your name now: I can help you find the instructions for doing so. I am in fact a Christian, and I'm not encouraging you because I personally find your name offensive: I just know that these arguments end up making Christians look divisive and argumentative. It's best to avoid them. Supporting and contributing to dubious articles on demon possession will only increase your chances of being challenged. Let me know if I can help. Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing just this morning, and would encourage you to take Jwrosenzweig good counsel. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me on User_talk:Bcorr or I'm sure you could also go to User_talk:Jwrosenzweig. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Are you a pastor? Im a converted Christian, a Baptist, but I dont go to church cause Sunday church service bores me. Antonio Baby Baby! Martin

Your user name is POV by endorsing a specific religion and may be inflammatory -- please change it.

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Username. The primary purpose of user names is to identify and distinguish contributors.

The current name you are using is less of an identifier and more of a religious prostletizing tool. Wikipedia is not intended to be a pulpit to endorse any one belief system.

Thank you.

Davodd 11:10, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

My username is not offensive. It appears that someone else have very similar user names... There is User:CrucifiedChrist and a user named Jesus (User:Ihcoyc) in Greek. They have not, to my knowledge, been told to change their user names. When you apply your anti-religious bias you could at least do so uniformly. Is making an affirmation about Jesus worse than claiming to be Jesus (as User:CrucifiedChrist and User:Ihcoyc do)? I would say certainly not! Jesus Saves! 12:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You say your username is not offensive. How can you posiisbly know that? Andy Mabbett 16:35, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
JS, I would point out to you two things regarding your above statement. CrucifiedChrist has edited here once since February 2003: if their name appeared here more frequently, someone would likely ask them to change. I would. User:Ihcoyc, first of all, is not recognizable to most users as a religious name. Likewise, the usernames User:LionOfJudah or User:RoseOfSharon would almost certainly not draw fire here because most users would not see them as an offensive statement of religious faith. I encourage you to stop fighting this and to abide by the community standards...many of us here are Christians and have written much about our faith without attempting to force others to see our faith every time our username appears. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear User! I'm not sure your name correctly identifies you. People usually make their names so that others call them and by referring to it, so religious concepts can hardly be considered as names. You can look at Wikipedia:Username for tips about choosing your username. User:Ilya 194.85.64.47 13:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I leaved the same message on User talk:CrucifiedChrist. I thank you for notifying everybody about that case, if you consider this as something worth thanking. As for Ihcoyc I could never imagine that this means Jesus (by the way, a standard Greek name, not necessarily connected with Christianity), so let's leave it to somebody else. 194.85.64.47 13:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This user name is in violation of Wikipedia:No offensive usernames. RickK 18:49, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Howcome 'Jesus Saves' is considered offensive, yet no-one has picked up on 'Jesus Blows Goats' who recently added a whole bunch of pages to vfd quercus robur

By the look of this, that name was created to make a point about "JesusSaves!" as a user name, and it's already been changed to an unoffensive alternative anyway -- sannse 21:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually no, I think censoring names is a slippery slope, and would be better avoided. I think names such as "Jesus_Saves!" or "Jesus_Sucks" or "Jesus_Rules" or "Jesus_Rapes" or whatever are all means of expression. But, the *#($*&) policy already exists (which I hadn't known), saying to not use inflammatory names :( Pagan 21:21, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please change your name to something less controversial. Wikipedia policy is to avoid controversial names that may cause controversy, offence or give the impression that you are promoting an agenda. People should be able to judge you on your contributions, and any name (where supportive of religion, etc or mocking of it) which undermines your perceived neutrality risks damaging both you and wikipedia. For example, it hardly helps wikipedia if people looking at an edit history of an article on religion find its major contributions are from someone called User:Jesus Saves!. They immediately presume the article is biased, either from someone pushing a religious agenda or from someone whose name is being ironic and who is actually anti-religion. That may be totally unfair and your edits may be 100% neutral and of high quality, but their credibility risk being undermined by your username. The same is true of political names, for example User:Saddam, User:UpDeV or User:GWBush would cause problems because no matter how innocent their edits would be, people would presume in the first, a pro-Saddam Hussein bias, in the second a Fianna Fáil bias on Irish entries, and in the case of the third a biased view (either for or against) George W. Bush.

The policy on usernames is not nitpicking. Thousands of people have contributed to wikipedia and it is important that no one person's actions in selecting a username risks compromising the project's neutrality. That is why we ask people to avoid names that might indicate a personal bias in areas, even if in reality they have not a bias, just a badly picked username that can create the wrong impression. User:Pagan's nickname is a classic example of a stupid nickname that reeks of presumed bias. Don't forget also that when a hardcopy version of wikipedia is printed, they will be required to list some of its authors or their nicknames. Controversial nicknames simply will not get used which means that your hard work may not get recognised in the printed version, all because of a perceived POV name.

Wikipedia's rules empower the forced renaming of usernames that are seen as controversial, biased, offensive or pushing an agenda. We need also to remember that there are many people on wikipedia who have many different views, and so it is important to avoid names that many cause offence to others, eg, pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, pro- or anti-American, pro- or anti- religious belief, etc. Just as we don't allow names that mock Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc out of respect for religious believers, so we expect religious believers to avoid names that may seem provocatively pro- a specific set of beliefs that others conscienciously cannot accept. So please change your name to something more neutral, maybe User:JS for example. Otherwise there is every likelihood that you will be renamed anyhow. There is no point making an issue of your name. It is your edits that should matter. The wrong name is simply an unnecessary distraction to everyone and risks undermining the credibility of your contributions. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I second everything FeirEIRANN said. Please change your name to something more neutral, don't make it a huge thing. It's not worth it. -Puffy jacket 23:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you have any preference for an alternative name? -- Tim Starling 13:40, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your edits to pages like Born again. It is one thing to inform someone of what a Christian concept means....it is another to preach to them. Your edits have been increasingly aimed at preaching and are less and less simply informational. Much of this has to do with tone: rather than announcing something as though it is true, explain who thinks it is true and why. I hope you will not be offended by my saying this. As a Christian here at Wikipedia, it is important to me that all those of my faith behave appropriately: I feel that (whether or not this is true) in some way the behavior of all Christians reflects on me a because of my identification with Christ. Therefore, I would love it if you could become a positive contributor here to help display a good witness for our faith. You will not convert people by preaching to them here: you will only enrage them and turn them more against Christianity. In fact, you will endanger the continued existence of good informative articles about Christianity here if you persist long enough: after a while, an agnostic would likely just want to delete the articles and end the controversy. I know what it is like to have a real and powerful faith and want to share it: please remember that the place for sharing it is not in our articles. Leave a note on my talk page or email me if you want to discuss this. I hope you will take a less agressive stance soon, and wish you the best regardless, Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==

"21:18, 9 Jan 2004 Ed Poor deleted "User:Jesus Blows Goats" (content was patently offensive, developers please change username)"

If Jesus Blows Goats is offensive and got deleted, why isn't Jesus Saves offensive and why doesn't it get deleted? Not only is the name offensive, but the page content is clearly propaganda.

Ed didn't know what was going on. JBG voluntarily changed his name on December 27, see Wikipedia:Changing username. The redirect was left in place so that it wouldn't break signatures, and so that people wouldn't be confused. If you want Jesus Saves to change his/her name, I suggest you ask an administrator to block it. -- Tim Starling 01:07, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

After reading the above I can only say, "What a load of hype!".

Objecting to inappropriate changes to article content I can understand, but objecting about using the name "Jesus Saves" so vehemently seems beyond comprehension.

Surely connecting a verb to someone that's been dead for almost two thousand years can be little more than a joke, the time interval being far too long for even "Rots" to seem appropriate. I feel that Ms Saves has the right to retain such an absurd title if she feels the need. Tell 12:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am a lapsed Catholic. I fail to see why this user's name should cause offense. If you are offended, get over it. This is not a government-run website. There is no separation of church and state here, as there is no state. While you can criticize the user's edits, it is unfair to criticize the name. In fact, you are attacking the person's right to hold whatever beliefs he or she wishes. Brooklyn Nellie 06:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sanctification copyvio?

Comparing to http://www.theknowledgeofhisword.org/page13.html, the posted material appears to be a copyright violation. Can you clear this up? Mkmcconn 21:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Justification article

Hi,

I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]