Talk:Bible/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Categorization

There is an error in the first section. It claims that the there are 46 books in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. This is incorrect. There are 39 books in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. There are 46 books in the Catholic Bible. This deeply concerns me that I am unable to edit and correct this perversion of God's Word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus'smessenger (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry must be split. There is much conflicting information. The Holy Bible and the Hebrew Bible are NOT the same thing and cannot both claim to be THE Bible. The Bible query needs to go to a page with a list of entries that includes these topics as well as other articles. There cannot be a Bible entry since these people cannot refrain from religious sniping and tyranny. 5/22/07

The number of books depends upon how one puts them together, and then how they are counted:

• 24 : Orthodox Jewish Tanakh;
• 39 : Protestant Old Testament;
• 39 : Anglican Old Testament;
• 46 : Roman Catholic Old Testament, including deuterocanonical books;
• 49 : Greek Orthodox Old Testament. (50 if apocrypha is included);
• 51 : Slavonic Orthodox Old Testament. (52 is apocrypha is included.);
• 53 : Anglican Old Testament plus Apocrypha;
• 54 : Coptic Narrower Canon of Eighty-One Old Testament;

The Jewish Tanakh,Anglican Old Testament, and Protestant Old Testament are identical in content.

The Coptic Canon of Eighty-One splits Proverbs into Two Books.On the other hand, it combines The Prayer of Manassas with 2 Chronicles. It also combines 2 Maccabees and 3 Maccabees. The Anglican Apocrypha treats Bel, Susanna, Song of the Three Young Men, and Daniel as four books. The Roman Catholic Canon treats them as a single book.

Maybe a chart showing how the different canons are constructed would be useful. jonathon 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopian canon (not the Coptic canon) has 81 books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.100.23 (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right in that it should be Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One, rather than Coptic canon of Eighty one. However, that list of numbers refers only to the number in the Tanakh/Old Testament, not the complete Bible used by the religious organization. jonathon 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that this article needs to be split. The Christian and Jewish bibles are not sufficiently similar to allow for one entry. Translations and interpretations among believers of Christianity and Judaism are completely different. The generic "Bible" page should be a disambiguation page. Otherwise people reading the article to learn about the Christian or Jewish Bibles will need to wade through a large amount of irrelevant material. User:Luqmanskye —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Torah is a subset of the Tanakh which is a subset of the Protestant Christian Canon,which is a subset of the Roman Catholic Canon, which is a subset of the Anglican Canon, which is a subset of the Orthodox Christian Canon, which is a subset of the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (narrower canon), which is a subset of the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (broader canon). Alternatively, the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospels are a subset of the sacred scripture of Islam, and Christianity. jonathon 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the different groups have different understandings of what the books mean. Samaritans, for example, consider the Nviim and Ktuvim to be "Man's Word",and thus not Holy Writ. Both Kariate or Rabbinical Judaism consider the Nviim and Ktuvim to be Holy Writ. Their understanding of the Tanakh is radically different. Even orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, despite coming from Rabbinical Judaism clash on nearly every significant point of theology. Wandering into Protestant Christianity, you're hard pressed to recognize the theology of Metropolitan Community Church, and Church of Christ as being derived from the same textual source.jonathon 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I vote that information containing the text should be marked with "here be spoilers"

• Yes, especially for those who plan to watch the movie version. Wahkeenah 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Folks! Just a reminder that the talk page is for discussing the content of the encyclopedia article. Have a great day! Best, --Shirahadasha 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, no spoiler warnings are necessary for this sort of ancient text. Wesley 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hence my sarcastic remarks to what I took to be a sarcastic entry. Feel free to delete this entire section as being silly. :) Wahkeenah 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read 7 chapters, so don't ruin it for me. I hope Noah gets out of that ark okay... --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Book has a happy ending. For some. Did you get to the part about where Noah kept the bees? Wahkeenah 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler: In the ark-hive. Wahkeenah 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, its pretty no-surprises after genesis...
  • So, at that point in reading, you made your exodus? Wahkeenah 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Satan here, I decided to read the bible to "know my enemy" but I just read the ending and I noticed that I *lose*! I've decided not to bother with the Apocalypse so you humans go on up to heaven without the drama, keke thnx.

lol, GG NO RE!

Torah Section

The Torah section is awfully large for having it's own article. Maybe it should be shortened? --Vlmastra 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Note: Let me clarify, I meant the "Hebrew "Bible" section.

The Torah is the old Testament, why doesn't it warrant as large a place as its younger brother? Henners91 07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Torah and the Hebrew Bible are not the same. In principle, I would think that it would be fair if half the article was about the Jewish Bible and half about the Christian Bible. In fact, the Jewish Bible occupies less than half the article. So i do not see why anyone could say it is "awfully large" unless you think it is awful that Judaism is treated as equal in merit to Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha section?

The introduction states that some bibles have an Apocrypha section. It isn't my understanding that Apocrypha is can actual section, but simply additional books within the NT and OT. Is this incorrect? Please see wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_bible. Fcsuper 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed introduction:

"The Bible is the canonical collection of sacred writings or books of Judaism and Christianity.

The books of the Bible vary depending on tradition. The collection of books used by Judaism is called Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. The collection of books used in Christianity is called Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God, or Christian Bible. Christianity traditionally includes the books of the Tanakh in Christian Bible within a section called Old Testament, though these books are organized differently and sometimes include additional books. Christian Bible canon also includes a second section called New Testament."

Additionally, I propose moving this paragraph to a more relevant section of the article:

"More than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Hebrew Tanakh exist, as do numerous copies of the Septuagint, and 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, more than any other work of antiquity."

Fcsuper 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fcsuper 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, updated introduction. I left the 14,000 manuscripts statement for now because I couldn't find another article or section of this acticle where the information could be quickly moved. Fcsuper 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Objection and quibble

It is true that before the 16th century, Bibles did not have apocrypha sections; the Old Testaments of Christian Bibles contained a mix of canonical and non-canonical books. However many (most?) 16th century (and later) editions did and do have apocrypha sections. Editions that have such a section include the Luther Bible, the Authorized King James Bible, and the Clementine Vulgate. See the article on Biblical apocrypha for the details. In the 19th century it became increasingly common for printers to drop these sections, but they can still be found in some printings. My 21st century "Oxford Classics" edition of the KJV has the apocrypha section.

For that reason I quibble with your opening statement, The Bible is the canonical collection of sacred writings or books of Judaism and Christianity. Before the 17th century, all Christian Bibles contained non-canonical works as well. Some still do. Rwflammang 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose leaving the 14,000 manuscript quote. It is one of the things that makes the Bible especially noteworthy even from a saecular POV. Rwflammang 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about being a little more obvious: "The Christian Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and the Jewish Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) is the holy book of Judaism."

Better yet, the "central religious text" of the religion, as it says with the Quran. Nice and neutral, and avoids arguments about "canon" and such. Wahkeenah 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is better, but I recommend changing "what Christians call the Old Testament" to "contained in what Christians call the Old Testament", since many Old Testaments contain considerably more. Rwflammang 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The point I'm making is that Jews have a book they refer to as The Bible, which is obviously not the Christian Bible. Wahkeenah 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit]Just making the point that mention of variations of the bible such as Apocrypha is redundant to the opening sentence "The books of the Bible vary depending on tradition.", so it isn't necessary either way. Also, what is defined as apocrypha varies based on tradition. The Catholoic Church labels some books as apocrypha, but they aren't the ones labelled as apocrypha in Lutherian tradition. It's a term with no clear delineation. Again, the topic of variety is covered by the introducting sentence and by differentiation between Judaism and Christianity. Fcsuper 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Bibles used to have places to write the owners' family tree in them. I wouldn't say that's "canonical" either... more like a sales gimmick. Wahkeenah 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm guessing you are agreeing with my Apocrypha point, but may also be suggesting we remove all reference to what is canon in the introduction? I'm neutral on the use of "canon" in the introduction myself. If there is a consensus to remove that reference, then let's do it per the discussion above. Fcsuper 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mention of the Apocrypha section is redundant to the phrase that the books of the Bible vary according to tradition. It is rather a statement that some editions contain a third section of books in addition to the Old and New Testaments. Clearly such books, which were found in all Christian bibles prior to the 16th century, constitute much more than family tree pages. You are quite right to note that Catholic editions as well as Protestant have included the Apocrypha section, all the more reason to mention it.

It seems to me that the variability of the contents in the Apocrypha section should no more preclude its mention than the variability in the Old Testament. I'm not sure what you mean by "no clear delineation"; it seems to me that the Apocrypha section is consistently used to mean "books of the Bible that are not considered by the publisher to be authoritatively canonical". The variability in the Apocrypha section is due to disputes about the canonicity of some books; as such it is directly complementary to the variability in the Old Testament. Each disputed book is placed either in the Old Testament or in the Apocrypha section, depending on the opinion of the publishing authority. The earliest Christian bible I know of that omitted entirely a disputed book was printed in the 17th century. Rwflammang 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that there is varibility in what is in a supposed Apocrypha section, it's that this is not a common consideration, as the edit to that Apocrypha section sentence points out. Most bibles simply do not add books that the author finds objectionable. The problem with mentioning Apocrypha is that it is a loaded term, that is pejorative in nature. What is called Apocrypha by some is called Deuterocanonical by others, and it is certainly not highlighted as Apocrypha by those others. It's too much to explain for the short introduction paragraph, and too loaded without explanation. Let the article (and all of the other wiki articles on the matter) speak for themselves. We don't need to add this one item at this particular point, since it is explained in context elsewhere. It's not nearly as notable as the fact that Judaism and Christianity have differences in their bibles. Also, no one is using those pre-17th Century bibles unless one is a scholar or something, so this makes it even less notable compared to the other comments in the introduction (though it is notable in context, ad I pointed out above). If we are getting in Acycrypha in the introduction, we might as well also start off with a mention of the First Council of Nicaea and why some books where included and others left off. It's just way too much for these short three paragraphs. Fcsuper 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No publisher adds books that he considers objectional; that is not what an apocrypha section is. It is simply a section apart from the Old and New Testaments for books that are not considered canonical. Obviously "apocrypha" is a loaded term, but that does not keep it from being used in some editions of the Bible. That use should be noted. The fact that the Apocrypha section is not highlighted by "those others" does not mean it is not included in, e.g., the King James Bible. It is certainly too much to explain it all in this article; fortunately there is no need. It does, after all, have its own article, but that does not mean it should not be mentioned or linked to.

If you have an alternative location for the apocrypha section to be mentioned in this article, I would be happy to hear a suggestion. I think a good place to mention the three-part division of some Christian bibles would be in the same paragraph where the two-part Old and New Testament divisions are first mentioned.

It is simply not true that no-one but a scholar uses versions with an Apocrypha section, as a quick perusal of the bible bookshelf in you local chain bookstore will reveal. These are not limited to pre-17th century editions; see, for instance [http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Revised-Standard-Apocrypha-Hardcover/dp/019528478X/ref=sr_1_1/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-1], [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha/dp/0192835254/ref=sr_1_3/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-3], [http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha/dp/1585160687/ref=sr_1_6/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-6], [http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-Apocrypha-Oxford-Cambridge/dp/B000EZKXFI/ref=sr_1_19/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-19], [http://www.amazon.com/Revised-English-Bible-Apocrypha-Reb/dp/0191000124/ref=sr_1_22/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-22], [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha-Contemporary/dp/1585160210/ref=sr_1_37/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718949&sr=1-37], [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Readers-Bible-Apocrypha-Introductions/dp/B000GU8YZW/ref=sr_1_49/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177719089&sr=1-49], and [http://www.amazon.com/Complete-American-Translation-Testament-Apocrypha/dp/B000LCBKZG/ref=sr_1_53/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177719089&sr=1-53].

Since this is an article about the Bible, it seems to me that noting the three-part division of some Christian bibles is worthwhile. I agree with you that mentioning Nicaea is not worthwhile. Rwflammang 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the books mentioned on the Amazon links, most of the bibles make a point of saying "Holy Bible and Apocrypha" in their titles, denoting a difference between the two. One of the bibles listed even says "Three Books of the Apocrypha" in the title, which goes to show that what is declared Apocrypha varies wildly between traditions, and it in no way has an established traditional core that bares that name. One bible linked above did have an Apocrypha section. Others didn't appear to have sections for Apocrypha, but appear to simply include such books in their traditional locations (either OT or NT). Which brings me to whats kinda the point here. Apocrypha books are traditionally a part of OT or the NT. Particular bibles having Apocrypha sections isn't as notable as the fact that Jews and Christians have different bibles. As mentioned above, many bibles also had family trees, many bibles concordances, cross-referencing, footnotes, and a bunch of other additions. The choice to break some books off in to an Apocrypha section isn't a far cry from these other features, particularly since (as stated before) Apocrypha is a perjorative term and requires a ton of explanation to use it in context. The introduction of this article just isn't the right place for that, unless we expand it drastically and employ tons of reduntant material. Fcsuper 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one of the Bibles linked to says "Bible and Apocrypha". All say "Bible with Apocrypha". 6 of the 7 bibles linked to had separate sections for apocrypha. I'm not sure about the 7th; it may or may not have a separate section. No-one denies the contents vary; such variation is roughly complementary to variations in the Old Testament and are adequately described in the linked article, Biblical apocrypha. The tradition of including non-canonical books in the Old Testament seems to have died out around the 16th century with the invention of the apocrypha section. This post-16th century tradition seems worth mentioning to me. The fact that Jews and Christians have different bibles is very notable; one of those differences is that many Christian bibles of the 16th-19th centuries had apocrypha sections; some from the 19th-21st centuries still do. The apocrypha section is not an "addition" to the bible but a preservation of non-canonical books no longer placed in the OT section. Some do use apocrypha as a pejoritive term; does this mean we must pretend that apocrypha sections do not exist? I do not understand why you keep insisting we must "employ tons of redundant material"; you did not delete tons of redundant material; you deleted one sentence: some bibles include a third section for apocrypha, or words to that effect. Rwflammang 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of your points are taken, but I must correct you on some. I never said we should pretend the apocrypha doesn't exist. I stated that it should be mentioned in context where it can be explained. And in other words, I also stated that it is already fully explained in wikipedia articles and to let the context speak for itself. As far as reduntant material goes, mentioning the apocrypha out of context introduces the requirement to explain it to bring it into context. As just stated above, it's already explained elsewhere. Further, we removed mention of canon in the introduction, which really leaves the addition of the mention of apocrypha section out in the cold, contextually speaking. Apocrypha sections are as you say, made from books no longer considered canonical, but I will again add (as stated above), they are traditionally a part of either the OT or the NT. It is simply a distinction on how the author wishes to organize those same books, and thus less notable than mention of the OT and NT. Simply saying some bibles have an apocrypha section suggests that there are different books from other origins in there. I'm not completely against mention an apocrypha section, but I currently haven't seen wording that does it justice within the introduction without being redundant or the opposite of being under-explained. Fcsuper 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "pejorative" about the term Apocrypha in connection with the biblical Apocrypha. The "pejorative" usage is elsewhere, as the article notes, such as the fable about Washington and the cherry tree. The use of "apocryphal", which essentially means "non-canconical" is a satirical or trivializing usage of the term inother contexts. FYI, did you know where George's wooden false teeth came from? Well, I gonna tell ya. He whittled them out of cherrywood, after his father punched his teeth out. (That's some apocrypha about other apocrypha). :) Wahkeenah 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cute Wahkeenah. :) However, I disagree with your statement by saying it is simply not true that aprocrypha is not a pejorative term. Pejorative means, "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force" or "depreciative, disparaging" The term suggests inferiority to other portions of the bible. I do thank you for making the distinction between aprocrypha and aprocryphal. Fcsuper 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can thank the National Lampoon High School Yearbook Parody for that one. In terms of "inferiority", if you're a strict believer you could say it's true that the Apocrypha are "inferior" in the sense that the canonical books are supposed to be the word of God or divinely inspired, whereas the Aprocrypha are not; they are merely additional works of sufficient interest to be included in the Bible. Wahkeenah 10:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right on, but I'm not sure "additional" is the right word, since these books have been in the Bible since antiquity. "Non-canonical" or "of dubious canonicity" captures the meaning better, perhaps. I suspect that the apocrypha section was first invented by publishers who wanted to stress the distinction between canonical and non-canonical works, without kicking the books out of the Bible. Some earlier publications had made the distinction between canonical and non-canonical works in prologues. See Biblical apocrypha#Vulgate prologues. What is striking is that before the 19th century, Christians did not regard "canonical" to be a synonym for "biblical" like most seem to today. Rwflammang 00:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for additional wording following the NT mention. "Some versions or editions of the bible may have certain books listed separately within an apocrypha section."

Request for further edits: I also would like us to consider adding a little more detail about the NT (something we can fit into one additional sentence). Fcsuper 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Task complete. Archive this topic. Fcsuper 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bible (Abyssinian)

Manuscript 15th century, "Binding in wood, back sewn in the Chinese style" third treasure National Library of Turkey Nice to include in the article? Fleurstigter 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

query

Can people who know much of the history of the canonization of the Gospels comment here? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bible Societies

I propose removing the Bible Societies section under external links. All of the entries under this section are spam links, and I can't see how any non-spam links could be added given the nature of the section. Fcsuper 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing there at all that qualifies as spam. These are all legitimate societies. Dovi 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say none of the sites where legit, but practically every single one was promoting a particular faith (either expressed or implied) and where not general bibilical groups. The whole catagory is naturally spam for every little group that wants their name linked on some official site to raise their profile. Also, I did leave this request for input up a few days. Fcsuper 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bible societies are an important discussion regarding the bible; they have been instrumental in the promotion and distribution of bibles, and have also been at the forefront of translation efforts. Should we have a Bible Society page? peterl 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter, good comment. There is already a bible society wiki article. I've added the link to Bible analysis section in the same format as other wiki article links. Fcsuper 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you peterl 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the Bible society article. Links to specific bible societies can go there, unless someone would prefer to compile a List of Bible societies article. --Shirahadasha 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Task complete. Archive topic Fcsuper 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang about! I think the heading "Bible Societies" should now be changed to something more general. It looks a bit un-professional to have a heading "Bible Societies" followed by a single bullet point "Bible Society". I would have changed it without this comment but just can't think of a more general heading at the moment. If anybody has an idea - please do change it. WikiJonathanpeter 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've made an alteration. I've changed the bullet point to say... "See Bible Society for a list". Looks much better now. WikiJonathanpeter 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I would prefer just listing it under one of the other categories, but this is fine. Fcsuper 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do agree but we have the problem that it doesn't fit into one of the other catagories. Anyway - we can archive topic now everybody is happy :o). WikiJonathanpeter 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bible Texts

The links under "Bible Texts" are untidy. I'm not sure about the last link addition. Since I'm not an expect in this area and can't read websites in other languages other than English, please could somebody else take a look and sort it out. WikiJonathanpeter 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bible commentaries

I have moved all the links to Biblical exegesis where there is already a list of links to Biblical commentaries WikiJonathanpeter 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I deleted some of the poorer links in the process. WikiJonathanpeter 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

I added http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ to external links, but it was removed. It provides substantial commentary and relevant content, and meets the external links criteria. While it's probably not from a neutral point of view, most of the current links are purely from the Cristian point of view; so this website provides some balance.

That said, there are a lot of other links which should be removed, either because they only duplicate content at wikisource, because they are merely linkfarms or because they are richmedia. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand why the link was removed. I also understand your criticisms of many of the other links. I don't think www.skepticsannotatedbible.com should be on the bible article. It's a POV link in this context. I do feel it is a valuable link, and is better served by being including on a new Bible Controversies article instead. (I'm actually surprized I couldn't find a Wikipedia article with the topic of Bible Controversy.) Thoughts? Fcsuper 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I have heard good arguments against many of the stated contradictions, thus the link would actually unbalance the article from that view point. It would be wrong to supply a list of contradictions without providing the counter arguments. As Fcsuper says, it would be much better to have a separate topic giving a balanced discussion in the area (if discussion is the right word). The links as you say do need reviewing. I guess this hasn't been done because of the time it will take to go through them all in order to do a thorough job. This is something I'll spend next Wednesday doing as I have the day off and have nothing better to do! WikiJonathanpeter 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The link has just been added to another article to do with Christianity. I am removing it of the page for now before more people see it and add it to more pages. WikiJonathanpeter 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is been added this many pages. The link should not be added here.--SkyWalker 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Holy Bible" vs. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Quran

The MoS explicitly states "Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia." Does anyone actually disagree with that it is obvious bias to apply this to the Qur'an, but not to the Bible? --Servant Saber 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible means "book" and "holy" is used to distinguish it from other books. Quran means "recitation" and I think the way Muslims distinguish it from other recitations is as "noble." If I am right I would have no objection to regularly identifying the Quran, when speaking specifically of the one Muslim's consider noble, as the Noble Quran. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in context I do not think the article is calling the Bible "the Holy" Bible - it is saying Christians call it the Holy Bible, which is accurate and complies with NPOV (as it would to say that Muslim's refer to the Quran as the Noble Quran or - if they do - the Holy Quran).Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bronze age Levantine myths

I removed this, because (1) it is not NPOV, as people argue over whether or not it is myth, history, literature, allegory, etc.; (2) much of what it discusses is Iron Age, not Bronze Age; (3) Bronze and Iron age are kind of anachronistic ways of dating periods anyway, I do not think most Biblical scholars rely on these terms anymore (4) even those who agree that the Bible includes Bronze Age Myths identifies their origins in Egyptian mythology and SUmerian mythology, both of which fall outside of the Levant. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about bronze age/levantine myths was vandalism. See history of edits. WikiJonathanpeter 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

dab

Is there an established precedent for whether to disambiguate a title as (bible) versus (biblical)? There seems to be dual usage, as well as others like (ancient city) etc. Do let me know, Tewfik^Talk 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Bible Origination

There is no mention of the Catholic Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Council of Carthage (AD 397) where the catholic church selected the books of the bible that we use today.

Are Secularized Dates Necessary for Entry?

- Recent edits changed AD & BC reference to BCE and CE. To me this edit seemed unnecessary and petty at best. I was wondering if that is Wiki protocol or not? XParadigm777x 06:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since "the Bible" addresses both the sacred literature of Christians and Jews, I think we should use both as a compromise, or use BCE/CE when talking about the Jewish bible and BC/AD when talking about the Christian Bible. Our Style Guidelines allow both forms. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thank you. XParadigm777x 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Just as a grammatical point, should the word "biblical" be capitalized or not? It seems like the word is randomly caps or not throughout this entry. KevClark64 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)KevClark64

Grammatically speaking, no it should not. "Biblical" is an adjective, not a noun, and should not be capitalized. I'll take a pass through the article and see if I can get it uniform. -Pastordavid 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Poligamy

I was having a disscusion with one of my wifes and Im sure the bible does not say its against poligamy. The bible has plenty of references where god tells somone to marry extra wifes, another wife when already married. Does any one have any quotes? Please do not quote two joined as one (Sure thats being one together, but it doesnt exclude being one with another wife). Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 1 August 2007.

I'm not sure whether this is really relevant to the article under discussion, but have you looked at the Polygamy article? It has quite a bit of discussion about how views on polygamy have changed within various religions. I don't know whether you are interested in Christianity, Islam, Judaism or all three, but from the article it sounds as though their adherents all accept that their religions allowed polygamy at some point. See this bible quote (it's referenced by the Polygamy article). I wonder whether the bible has any references to women with multiple husbands? Bistromathic 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bible prohibited to laypeople during the Middle Ages?

I've recently read that during all of the Middle Ages the Catholic Church decreed (maybe even by threatening capital punishment) that it was absolutely forbidden for laypeople (including lay legal scholars or other people that might know Latin) to read the Vulgate themselves instead of listening to their local clerics. If that's true, I think it ought be included here. --Tlatosmd 10:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

- This does in fact have some truth to it, but additional research would be required for this topic. It would certainly be an interesting addition to the article. XParadigm777x 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lay people were supposed to learn the Bible by paying attention to the lessons that were read during the service. Orthodox Christianity discouraged independent Bible Study, because that could lead to error. Catholic Christianity did not have that restriction. What Catholic Christianity did, was license the copying of manuscripts. Typically, a license to copy the Bible in Latin was granted. A license to copy, or translate the Bible into another language was typically denied. That way, the clergy could read the Bible, but the Laity could not. jonathon 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Catholic Church was trying to protect the bible then they have my salutes, but many of the current (and ancient) Catholic beliefs don´t really concord with the teachings of the Bible. Were they trying to protect it or to blind the public? What are your thoughts? --Mexiswenson 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"If the Catholic Church was trying to protect the bible then they have my salutes, but many of the current (and ancient) Catholic beliefs don´t really concord with the teachings of the Bible."

According to anti-Catholics. According to Catholics, their beliefs are PERFECTLY in concord with the Bible, and, in fact, they believe that they are the ones who actually compiled and preserved the book in the first place. Carlo 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the true story. Sometimes we in our age, presume many things, based on the bifocals of our day and age (that anyone can grab a book, read and write, and the Latin was a dead tongue to all, but to Clergy). Enjoy... http://members.aol.com/johnprh/latinbible.html .Micael 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Links

In the side box at the top of the page, the links for "Prophets " and "Writings" are switched. "Prophets" points to the Ketuvim page, and "Writings" points to "Nevi'im". Ketuvim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "writings", and Nevi'im is the same for the Hebrew word meaning "prophets". I would fix this myself, but I cannot figure out how to edit the side box. Thank you. Ganonsghost 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15