Talk:Bible translations into Latin

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... it isn't short --In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the CSD tag now that the article is starting to make a bit more sense, but I think you might want to think about changing the title and it could probably still use some more context. I'll check back in a few days, thanks!  N o f o rmation  Talk  06:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that the title is apt and descriptive. The article's biggest flaw is that it is too short and should be expanded, not deleted. It points out the verity that the Latin Vulgate is not the only Latin bible in the world, it just seems like it is. Rwflammang (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The title is, like Bible translations into Irish etc., one of the spinouts of the umbrella article Bible translations by language. It already has been expanded from the very short text on the original list. But certainly, more could be done. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

content is completely false
This content comes from a group of people who deny fossils because it doesn't fit their world view. This " Though there is no certain evidence of a pre-Christian Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, some scholars have suggested that Jewish congregations in Rome and the Western part of the Roman Empire may have used Latin translations of fragments of the Hebrew Bible.[1]" needs to double verifiable evidence; not an opinion. An opinion is not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.67.151.244 (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:NOTTRUTH. Veverve (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)