Difference between revisions of "Talk:Orthodox Study Bible"
(→The criticism section is out of balance) |
Jeffholton (talk | contribs) (Added section about broken orthodoxstudybible link) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
This article would be better titled "Criticism of the OSB" as it stands right now. The second quoted criticism is also from a review of the original OSB, which differs significantly from the current version. I think these articles should be linked in a section of links to reviews critical of the OSB, and this section should be significantly condensed to a one paragraph summary. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 15:59, February 5, 2011 (UTC) | This article would be better titled "Criticism of the OSB" as it stands right now. The second quoted criticism is also from a review of the original OSB, which differs significantly from the current version. I think these articles should be linked in a section of links to reviews critical of the OSB, and this section should be significantly condensed to a one paragraph summary. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 15:59, February 5, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I agree. Calling three random bloggers, none of whom have the CV to really be notable, "representative of most of the reviews" is a stretch at best and outright dishonest at worst. And the quotes are far too long, while the actual endorsements by hierarchs are glossed over. The anti-convert attitude of the last quote is especially beyond the pale. I removed the entire section. [[User:Oknazevad|Oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 07:42, September 18, 2025 (UTC) | :I agree. Calling three random bloggers, none of whom have the CV to really be notable, "representative of most of the reviews" is a stretch at best and outright dishonest at worst. And the quotes are far too long, while the actual endorsements by hierarchs are glossed over. The anti-convert attitude of the last quote is especially beyond the pale. I removed the entire section. [[User:Oknazevad|Oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 07:42, September 18, 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == orthodoxstudybible dot com link seems to have ceased to exist == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't want to remove the link unless someone can independently verify. I just want to make sure it's not just me and it's not that the site is temporarily down. [[User:Jeffholton|Theophilus]] ([[User talk:Jeffholton|talk]]) 03:47, August 27, 2026 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:47, August 27, 2026
Contents
Creating a list of translation errors
I would like to suggest that we create a list of translation errors in the OSB, not to slam the project, but to compile a list of things needing correction in a subsequent edition. I would limit it to substantive errors, in which the text is either clearly wrong, omits something that it should, or includes something that it should not... and I would suggest dividing it into those three categories. What do ya'll think? By the way, the edition I just got in the mail fixed all but one of the orginal errata of the first batch. Frjohnwhiteford 23:53, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
A good idea. I was surprised that the new edition didn't fix Psalm 22(23). It still has "my cup overflows" as in the MT. --Fr Lev 00:21, June 13, 2008 (UTC)
Dead links
The lxx.org domain seems to have a Chinese owner now. I don't know what should be done with the links to the project, though -- just delete them? --RdrSymeon 23:19, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Fixed using archived copies. http://web.archive.org/web/20080708162039/http://www.lxx.org/ --Arbible 23:38, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section is out of balance
This article would be better titled "Criticism of the OSB" as it stands right now. The second quoted criticism is also from a review of the original OSB, which differs significantly from the current version. I think these articles should be linked in a section of links to reviews critical of the OSB, and this section should be significantly condensed to a one paragraph summary. Frjohnwhiteford 15:59, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Calling three random bloggers, none of whom have the CV to really be notable, "representative of most of the reviews" is a stretch at best and outright dishonest at worst. And the quotes are far too long, while the actual endorsements by hierarchs are glossed over. The anti-convert attitude of the last quote is especially beyond the pale. I removed the entire section. Oknazevad (talk) 07:42, September 18, 2025 (UTC)
orthodoxstudybible dot com link seems to have ceased to exist
I don't want to remove the link unless someone can independently verify. I just want to make sure it's not just me and it's not that the site is temporarily down. Theophilus (talk) 03:47, August 27, 2026 (UTC)
