Talk:Bible translations in Norway

Google-translated

from Norwegian Wikipedia, Evidently Google-translated but not too bad, needs fixing not Talk :( In ictu oculi (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this translation needs too much work to be interesting. the "translator" has obviously no knowlegde neither to the matter, to norwegian nor to fluent english. --Orland (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian text	Bible dude's "translation"	My translation, just to demonstrate the difficulties
Den første gangen deler av Bibelen ble utgitt på et norsk språk, var på slutten av 1200-tallet, da deler av Det gamle testamentet ble oversatt til gammelnorsk. Denne oversettelsen ble kalt «Stjórn», som betyr styring. Oversettelsen er nokså fri i forhold til teksten slik vi kjenner den i dag. Sannsynligvis ble oversettelsen utført ved Håkon 5. Magnussons hoff. Kun to islandske avskrifter finnes i dag.	The first parts of the Bible was published in a Norwegian language, was in the late 1200s, as part of Old Testament was translated into old Norwegian. This translation was called "Stjørna", which meanscontrol. The translation is rather free with the text as we know it today. Probably the translation performed by Haakon 5 Magnusson s court. Only two island ske copies exist today.	At the end of the 13th century, some parts of the Old Testament were translated into Old Norse. This translation was later to be called "Stjórn", which means government. The translation is more of a paraphrase than a strict translation. The translations were probably done at the court of king Haakon V. Only two icelandic handwritings of the text are known today.

Fair call. Yeah, I'm not quite sure what's going on with this. It's going to need some massive work and yes, it's easier just looking at the Norwegian than the Google-translate. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And take a look at the first picture, where the text says "Title The magazine of Christian III's Bible". The norwegian word blad could be translated as both sheet, leaf and magazine; someone who knew what they were doing, would chose "title sheet", or even "title page" ...  :-( Bw --Orland (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note

As noted by Orland, this article is very bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It's completely ungrammatical and unsemantical with some sentences making no sense at all. I'm not sure though, if the best solution is to copyedit it (seems impossible w/o looking at the Norwegian artice), rather than simply deleting it or stubbing it... --Eisfbnore • talk 17:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead links

There are a lot of dead links towards the bottom and I am pretty sure most of them won't be made into pages. Another good step would be to get rid of a lot them and make it all look better. Leefkrust22 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)