Talk:Biblical Survey (literal-normal)/Editing Guidelines

Bible Versions
(taken from Talk:Study of Genesis/Creation)


 * It's occurred to me that when we quote bible references, we should also be saying the version of the bible we're using. I'm using the NIV over here, I don't know about anyone else. What's the general consensus on that? --Saz909 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Back before there was more than one person (me :-) to have a consensus with, I came to consensus with myself and decided to use NKJV. Mostly it was because I'm a fan of KJV, and NKJV makes a good modern-day equivalent.


 * what I determined on the guidelines' page was that all scripture linking should be done to BibleGateway's NKJV version. However, as for what version to quote, I didn't place a ruling.  Since you and I are the only active members at the moment, if you and I can come to a consensus on the matter, we can put it up on the guidelines' page.  In fact, I'm gonna move this discussion over to that page. --Opensourcejunkie 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(end of stuff taken from Talk:Study of Genesis/Creation)

Personally, I think that we should determine a version that is a Center-wide standard. Every study uses that version, unless otherwise noted. That would give a level of consistency throughout the Center, while leaving room for translation slip-ups and author preferences. what do you think? --Opensourcejunkie 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea actually. Alright, yeah, Bible Gateway NKJV sounds good, since everyone will be able to access that. I havn't looked yet, but if you havn't already included a link to it on your page sources, it would probably be a "good idea to, I will as well. I'm off to change my Genesis quotes XP. --Saz909 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikiversity, and enforcing a strict standard may be particularly "unwikicratic" here. If this topic is going to be limited to only one translation of the Bible, it needs to be renamed "NKJV Overview" or some such, as it is not comprehensive of the Bible. On the same note, if it will only include a single method of interpreting the Bible, it needs to be titled "Overview of Bible Literalism" or some such. I'm going to edit the article so as to make it more inclusive. The Jade Knight 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of stuff that's good to know :-). First of all, concerning the version control - the recommended policy wasn't specific to the NKJV, simply partial to it.  No editor would be required to use the NKJV, thus naming it an NKJV Overview wouldn't be accurate.  (perhaps naming it an NKJV-Partial Overview ;-).  But I do see your point that it might be unfair to the title to require editors to denote when using other versions of the Bible.  What about simply recommending the NKJV for consistency-sake?  Would that sort of guideline be permissible?


 * Secondly, concerning the litero-normalcy of the Center - I did make a note on the Dept. main page: "If studies based on on other exegetical techniques arise, perhaps the department name will narrow to accommodate the literal-normal bent." It will be exceedingly difficult to create a cohesive study of any book while espousing multiple methods of interpretation, and the purpose of the department as stated on the main page is to present a study that "follow[s] a literal-normal textual analysis of Scripture."  Thus it is the Dept. title that is incorrect, not the policy or content.


 * To be honest, I've been hoping to change the department name to "Topic:Biblical Survey" as it better reflects the course names found in traditional schools && seminaries. So perhaps in the move, we could change it to Topic:Biblical Survey (literal-normal)"?  Let me know what would best satisfy Wikiversity's content guidelines; I'm going to go ahead and revert to the old policy again, if that's all right.  Thanks for keeping us in-check,


 * --Opensourcejunkie 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With the new title, my objections about interpretive method are removed. I do think it would be better to simply state that using the NKJV is recommended.  The Jade Knight 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)