Talk:Reina Valera

Untitled

"Since the 1960 revision was released, there has been much debate among conservative Christian groups which use the Reina-Valera Bible."

I would consider this to be misleading. The word "much" is not quantifiable and implies that this is a common occurence among Spanish-speaking Christians, when in fact, it is not. I have been involved in the RV 1960 controversy for eight years. I am on a first name basis when many of the principal characters of this debate. I have seen that is not a matter of "much" controversy at all. Only native speakers of English tend to have a problem with the RV 1960. This debate is spear-headed almost exclusively by English-speaking missionaries. As the article notes, this debate is non-existent in Spanish-speaking countries.

Fair use rationale for Image:Biblia-oso.gif

Image:Biblia-oso.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added links to the LDS 2009 edition

I added links to the LDS 2009 edition because this is already mentioned in the article. However, there are two links because the portal on the LDS site opens up to other LDS scriptures, which are not mentioned in (and are not relevant to) this article. If anyone knows of a way to get just the 2009 Reina Valera in one link, go for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinscottc (talk • contribs) 19 September 2009

Biblia del Oso

The article says that the Reina-Valera bible was first published in Basel and that it was nicknamed the Bear Bible. Is there some mistake and it's supposed to say Bern instead of Basel? Otherwise what's with the nickname?--184.199.155.63 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert repeated insertion by User:Reinavalera1602

User:Reinavalera1602 added the following to the list in the sub-section "Other revisions"

The first Reina Valera 1602 in modern letters, revised by an independent christian from the South of Spain who loves this first and original version, without receiving any profit. In the beginning only The Gospels and Acts are published, but with the intention to finish all the New Testament in the future.

Even if the information is of encyclopedic interest, and as it stands, I consider that it is not, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest in that the reference leads to a promotional page which in its turn links to a page where the work is offered for sale. Furthermore, when the paragraph was restored by the same author (who has made no other edits in this Wikipedia) no rebuttal of the reasons which I gave for removing it first time round was attempted. If User:Reinavalera1602 wants the material to be considered seriously for inclusion that s/he explains why it should be here on the talk-page. — Jpacobb (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Error in history

The text reads: "The British and Foreign Bible Society, the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies published a total of fifteen revisions between 1708 and 1995". This seems unlikley because the Bible Society started in 1804. The first BFBS edition was in 1808. Should this 1708 read 1808? ChilternGiant (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Reina-Valera → Reina Valera – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. I was originally going to propose changing it from a hyphen to a dash, but after looking at the Google Ngrams, which show that the un-hyphenated/un-dashed version is much more common in English-language sources, I think the correct thing to do is to move it to this formatting. Looking over the Amazon listings, both the hyphenated/dashed and the unhyphenated/undashed versions are actually used. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.