Talk:The Clear Word

Critical Links?

Why were the critical links removed? According to Wiki guidelines, controversial topics can and should had a range of opinions. Someone is not being NPOV.

um, first of all...who are you? --Maniwar (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, why does that matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia's policy is that you sign your name. If you don't have the decency or curtesy to sign, then you don't deserve the curtesy of getting an answer. Also, notice, your last unsigned post was stamped by HagermanBot because you did not sign your name. --Maniwar (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia also says not to make personal attacks WP:CIVIL. You may need to reacquaint yourself with said guideline.

Regardless, the issue was not addressed as to why the links were removed. Unless you have a valid reason, they should stay. Someone forgetting to sign w/ the four tildas is not a reason as you surely should know.

Wikipedia is clear [1] that external links should not have one POV dominating the issue such is currently in this article. The first link is to SDANet and the TagNet link article begins with the sentence "As a piece of literature, the Clear World is probably the best English Bible published this century .." Cleary we need at least two critical links (which were provided) to show the other side of the issue. 66.191.19.42 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you are an individual who gets their feelings easily hurt if you find If you don't have the decency or courtesy to sign, then you don't deserve the courtesy of getting an answer to be Attacking. All the same, editors strive to keep Wikipedia articles good articles and free of POV edits (see also NPOV). To just come and dump a link in the article is not making the article better. And just because you can point out that critical links can go in an article doesn't mean that it cannot be reverted. Several things have to happen. If you feel the article needs balance, trying incorporating the criticism into the article and then Cite the source properly thus giving value to the article and balance. However, always know, that any link can always be edited out by other editors or by all editors because of Consensus. So, don't get your feelings hurt because someone may rv your entry. Go and read up more on Wikipedia and learn how the community works, i.e. signing your name. Happy posting and be bold! --Maniwar (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am aware of the issue of consensus, but think the issue of the specific links were never addressed.

As to being bold. First, I am removing the 'Neutral' heading from the external links. After reviewing them, they are anything but neutral. Secondly, I am adding one of the previous posted links back as it adds additional information not covered in the article. Specificially, it adds verse comparison that is not found in the article, nor should be as it would likely clutter it up. Again, see the Wikipedia guidelines on external links.

My feelings aren't in the least bit hurt. However, I don't believe that your, somewhat, snarky response really isn't in keeping with the article relating to civility. Not a big deal, but I thought I would mention it so we don't scare anyone away. Some of us that have been using Wikipedia for years still forget to sign a name; it happens, maybe give the benefit of the doubt. I have an account, but didn't log in at the time of the edit.

That's all for now. I can't spend much more time on such a short article. Goodbye & God bless. 66.191.17.168 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this paragraph needed?

I've removed the following paragraph:

 It has been reported that the The Clear Word has gained wide use within some Adventist circles.  
 It was endorsed by the former President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,  
 Pastor Robert Folkenberg. It was also advertised on more than one occasion in the official Adventist 
 magazine, Adventist Review.<ref>[http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/clearword/folkenberg_endorsment.htm Folkenberg endorsement and Adventist Review advertisement, reproduced by SDAnet.org]</ref>

The reason I removed it is to ask what value it lends to the article. For a non-Seventh-day Adventist who stumbles upon this article, did or does this paragraph lend value? Could I gain anything from it? I personally don't believe so. Why would I care if it "has gained wide use within some Adventist Circles." Perhaps it needs to be broken up and each point expanded. Anyone else have any opinons? --Maniwar (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I believe that the paragraph is useful because it demonstrates how well received the Clear Word was. I would like to reintroduce the paragraph in a new section titled "Reception" or similar. Tonicthebrown 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That maybe better suited if it's in a section that expands on it. How it was, it really wasn't lending value. Again, I'm trying to think of an outsider trying to glean neutral, yet informative information on it. Thinking like that, it really did not lend anything. Go for it in a new section and hopefully expanded. --Maniwar (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for fixing my typos. I did those additions too fast and was a bit distracted. --Maniwar (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I said above, please see the articles on Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, Good News Translation and others. It is quite normal to include information on the version's reception or impact in the church. I disagree that it is not useful information for an outsider. The fact that the president of the GC himself endorsed the version, and its advertisement in the Review, is a testament to the high-profile it gained. It also informs the background to the controversy. At the moment I don't have time to expand the section, but I do think it should remain in the article as it is. Tonicthebrown 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section should stay. Like Tonicthebrown pointed out, most articles about the English versions of the Bible have some note as to its reception by the Christian community. A good comparison would be the Joseph Smith Translation article. This particular translation came from a specific denomination, rather than a team of translators from differing traditions. The article rightly references it's level of acceptance in the denomination of its origin. 208.110.200.189 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Textual Basis?

Can anyone provide the source texts used for this translation? That would be a valuable addition to the standard box on the right. 208.110.200.189 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I added that, but could not find anything anywhere. I do remember speaking with Dr. Blanco and Dr. Springett when the Clear Word was first printed and they both said that the original text was used extensively. But since I can find no source to back up what I was told, I'm not gonna answer that one. --Maniwar (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The answer is going to be somewhat more involved than "the original text," though, considering it's a paraphrased translation, that is a start. I wonder if the publisher and/or the translators can be contacted via e-mail? It might be worth looking into. 208.110.200.189 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One way of solving this problem might be to see if disputed passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 5:4, etc. are included. If they are, then Blanco is biased towards the textus receptus. My understanding (though I could be wrong) is that most Seventh-day Adventists prefer the textus receptus. Tonicthebrown 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thought, but without a source it would be an opinion or assumption and thus labeled POV. I would venture on the same opinion, but again, no facts just leaves it as opinion. I wonder if the publishers ever released a statement answering that question? --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We certainly need some type of statement from the publisher or an unbiased third-party source. A statement by the publisher would be good, but it would have to be checked with other sources. The field of textual criticism is something often vigorously pursued by the Christian community, so it's hard to imagine there isn't something out there. 209.59.43.237 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See Also?

Why does the 'See Also' section have a laundry list of contemporary bibles when the link to List of English Bible translations will do? Seems like a waste. 209.59.36.99 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yes209.59.43.88 08:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been reworked. 209.59.46.179 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Hi editors to this article, I don't have this one on my watchlist, and it's been a while since I came by here, but I'm impressed with its content. I see User:Maniwar and User:Tonicthebrown's names frequently in the revision history, and also many other editors. Well done guys! Colin MacLaurin 07:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

hatchet job

I think this article is far far too negative. Over 1/2 of it is a criticism section. There should be examples of handling of verses, the high level of readability. Discussion of the fact that it is one of the few (only?) highly dynamic translations from the TR and not the NA26/7, etc... The links are off the wall. Taking the first one " A number of cults, as JWs, hold views of Arias, that the Father alone is Almighty God..." since when does Wikipedia have a position on the validity of the Nicene creed, or the invalidity of Ellen White? This is essentially an article that is arguing the CWB is bad because it is arian friendly and considers Ellen White's commentary to be valid; of course it does, the same way Catholic/Protestant bibles are written in the tradition of jerome.

I think this article needs a clean up treating this translation on its own terms. I think we should have a small section with criticism but these need to be classed. For example, a single line indicating that the clear word is highly dynamic (it calls itself a paraphrase and arguably well beyond into commentary) and people who object to highly dynamic will object to it on those grounds covers a huge percentage of the criticism. In other words, we need to clarify and separate off Blanco's philosophy (very loose paraphrase, intended for devotion) and his theology. jbolden1517^Talk 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the external link cited. While on that subject, there is a second one that is seriously suspect.

As to the criticism section dominating, I can understand the concern, but honestly find nothing factually wrong with it. Furthermore, when the Clear Word translation was released, it garnered an incredible amount of criticism and I believe we would err in not conveying the reasons behind the controversy. Perhaps expanding the rest of the article and not reducing the criticism section would provide more balance. In fact, there are a few other points that may warrant inclusion in the criticism section.

You make and interesting point about trying to separate Blanco's translation philosophy from his theology, but we'd need to be careful about NPOV. It may prove difficult separating out translation philosophy from simple theological agenda, while maintaining neutrality.

I would certainly support and would be glad to assist in some fine tuning and/or expansion, but do not believe the article needs a rewrite. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I do not think that the (apparently self-published, and anyway questionably-reliable) comments of Dale Ratzlaff and Verle Streifling count as "Critics of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in general". Beyond these two, it is hard to find any source from outside the Adventist orbit, and thus hard to see evidence of notability of this book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word_Bible

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word_Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.230.91 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Clear Word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adventist.org.au/about_adventists/misconceptions/clear_word_bible
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/articles/clear.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s time for improvement!!

Hi Wikipedians!! Can a Wikipedia editor who’s more knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing help improve this article—like, for example, spacing quotes. It’s time for improvement!! 2601:407:C400:733:50F3:1C2:DA31:10EE (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you did not acknowledge the serious reworking of this article on 19 Nov 2022 that identified the unabashedly nonbiblical, Adventist paraphrases in this "bible." However, what I especially don't understand is why this article now directs to the Pacific Press Publishing Association, an Adventist publishing house, but not to the one that actually publishes Jack Blanco's paraphrase. If a redirect to a publishing house is necessary, which I think is completely wrong-headed, it should at least be redirected to the Review and Herald Publishing Association, which IS associated with CW's publication. There is also the strange reality that, despite the complete elimination of this article, the Wiki article, "List of English Bible Translations," still includes "Clear Word Bible"! I think that CW should not only continue to be so listed but should also be retained as a separate article, along with the evidence that it is seriously biased toward Adventism. Wctrenchard (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)