Talk:Biblica

Not NPoV
This page doesn't seem to have a NPOV, so I am going to edit it so that it has a more unbiased view. I am taking out where it says "they distribute God's word". I find this ignorant or other Religions. IBS's version of God's word, and another person's version of God's word (Such as someone who follows Islam) is very different. "In addition to selling low-cost, ministry-priced Bibles" This seems to be trying to promote the society. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not free advertisement. I have edtited what I can. This whole page reads like IBS is trying to promote itself. Whoever wrote this article, please keep try to keep a NPoV next time. Thank-you. The page still needs some work. It is still not coming from a NPoV. Can someone else work on it? Eirra 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. Take, for example: "The CBT pioneered balanced translation, which combines thought-for-thought and word-for-word translation methods to create an accurate, clear translation." There's all sorts of people who would disagree with this. Many think the CBT translation method is decidely unbalanced, while others believe that although their translation is indeed balanced, many translations before it followed balanced translation styles as well. I'll do some more editing to move this article toward a more encyclopedic tone. Mitchell Powell (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also no mention of the havoc wrought by Biblica in the UK when they pulled the plug on their UK Ops: see http://christianbookshopsblog.org.uk/2009/11/16/and-so-it-ends-stl-uk-puts-up-for-sale-sign/ and related posts/discussions on that blog. I think it's fair to say that this is an important part of Biblica's global history, even if they themselves wish to sweep it under the carpet. St Gavin (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

yea i know im right

Name change is not retrospective
The merger and rebranding should not apply retrospectively. What IBS did in 1968 remains what IBS did, not Biblica. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it still too late to correct this? Basileias (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is never too late to correct things in Wikipedia. – Kaihsu (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I just create a new article for the IBS is that proper? As you can tell, I'm new in this area and I want to apply the proper solution. Thank you! Basileias (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change is not retrospective Redux
I've gotten around to starting the seperation. Basileias (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

your wellcome and you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.251.22 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I would like to remove the neutrality dispute banner if there's no objections. Basileias (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Translations
It would be good to know how many of their translations are mission translations i.e. in languages which did not already have a translation, and how many just commercially compete with existing translations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilternGiant (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Commissioned
The article says:

Since commission has a variety of meanings, and in some languages can for example mean order-picking among other things, I would like a word of explanation on what is meant by commissioned here. —37.62.191.234 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC) i say 123456789 i really think every one should read the book it is a good one it changed my life 4ever