My defense is that I am not and never have been Jewish myself, but I have heard from reliable sources (16:14~16:30) that this is a more accurate translation than the one I grew up with (Douay-Rheims) and the one virtually everyone else in the English-speaking world grew up with (KJV). They all do, and the one I would prefer to use is very explicitly Jewish. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply I'm not so much concerned with whether a translation has sectarian associations. Since this is a woefully specific association, I wish there was a guideline to turn to for an unbiased position, but this project has none. Personally I associate psalms with KJV based on Anglican chant of psalms. Which makes what I said above all the more astounding: "WikiProject Bible has no guideline whatsoever on what is the preferred edition". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply Everything you say is perfectly reasonable. I myself am not a specialist, so I don't know as yet where these problems are most concentrated, or even if the problem is relevant to Psalms at all, but I don't think we should be relying on problematic translations just because they are great classics of English literature or are popular among some Protestant groups (though certainly not Jewish or Roman Catholic groups). Another Yale professor (Christine Hayes - more relevant to the current discussion because she is a specialist in the Hebrew Bible) dislikes using even the RSV because the JPS translations are "more accurate". That's a Yale professor and the guy who wrote the most widely-used undergrad NT studies textbook in North America. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply The KJV is "one of the worst study bibles a great classic of English literature" (Ehrman) and "too old" and "contains too many errors" to be allowed for use in a university course on the NT (Martin). I note that WikiProject Bible has no guideline whatsoever on what is the preferred edition to use for quotations. It's also one of the most popular Bible editions even today. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply I'm not very knowledgeable in the topic, but KJV comes up often enough. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply Well, yeah, but combined with what you said in the section below the standard format requires quoting out-of-date and potentially problematic translations. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Reply Hijiri88: I once tried to come up with a standard format for Psalm articles: sandbox. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Reply Hijiri88: Of Psalm articles, only one ( Psalm 23) is B-class, two ( Psalm 1, Psalm 45) are C-class, and the rest are Start, or worse. Or, better yet, some list of things that need to be done, or disputes that could use more input?
Given the amount of dubously sourced material I've seen in prominent places like our Peter article('s lead!), I was wondering if anyone could tell me if we keep some kind of list of problem articles on prominent topics? I checked the list of Start- and C-class articles, but most of them seem to be on obscure minutiae that I could research, but. Hey, I was wondering if anyone could help me find a list of articles that are currently of a very low standard but that are "important" enough that a lot of reliable sources I already have access to (the Jewish Study Bible, the Bart Ehrman bibliography - including the scholarly ones and ones for undergraduate students - and the like) probably cover in enough to detail for me to write about them. Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות sabaoth, "armies") can refer to angelic armies or symbolically to the celestial bodies of the universe. Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות sabaoth, "armies") may refer to the army of Canaanite gods in the original, polytheistic religion of Canaan, Israel, and Judea or an army (Luke 2:13) of angels in the monotheistic Jewish religion that developed in the post-exilic period. First Light ( talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Reply See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth.