Talk:Bible conspiracy theory

Archives of older discussion

• Talk:Bible conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail

"(in fact the accepted belief in most Churches is that she was the "only" disciple)." This seems to be saying that modern chruches believe the twelve disciples were fake, which they do not. Can someone re-write that bullet point to clarify the intent? 66.32.95.90 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, since no one else wants to do it, I took a guess as to what you meant and rewrote it for clarity. 66.32.7.69 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost books of the Bible conspiracy theory

needs work; in particular, it needs to distinguish more carefully between the fact that certain books, held by some sects to be divinely inspired, were rejected when the canon was compiled, and the allegation that these books were suppressed out of sexism or fear rather than an honest belief in their falsehood. - Mustafaa 23:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. RK 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I am in total agreement with you that most people in the middle-east do not believe any such thing. I never imagined that the present text of the article would lead to such an impression. As such, I am certainly open to you and others reworing and rewriting the material in here, even moving some material to another article. I just don't want the context summarilly deleted. However, my goal is to expand this article to include all sorts of Bible conspiracy theories, especially those that deal with Jesus and his supposed wife, Jesus and his supposed childrem, Freemasons, etc. There are many such Bible conspiracy theories! RK 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

RK, before you massively reverted, please read the changes that were. Lots of the material *did* in fact go to another article, see Israeli-Palestinian history denial, which was referenced. Doesn't make sense to put it back. Much of the NPOVing that was done was also valid. I've reverted it back to the latest improved state. It can only be expected that many of these theories will have their own articles. This article in this case should link to these articles; the context should be clear enough. Or create a category if you are worried about losing context. Martijn faassen 23:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See? No reverts? There you go. I am happy to oblige. Now that we all understand each other, we see where the others are going. Everything seems to be working out Ok. RK 18:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

OK, glad we've cleared that up. - Mustafaa 10:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added my own two cents to the article, I wanted to clear up any confusion regarding the difference between the ancient groups alleging Bible conspiracy and corruption, like the Essene Nazoreans and Gnosticism (which although i do not adhere to those groups, I do find a strong reason to take their accusation seriously) versus the more modern pseudo-Christian groups that make the same claims, yet without any historical record of their own to validate them. The Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah Witness, and Jesus Only groups have made strong claims, and I found that their claims do not show any historical claim, and in fact they confuse people searching FOR biblical changes in the early periods.

Councils and the canon

"the Council of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) mostly fixed the currently recognized canon." See any flaws here? --Wetman 04:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL ok I just skimmed over this. Thanks for the heads up. -- 84.57.72.3 04:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE: "differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups"

"These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups." This is not true regarding Mormons. They use the King James version of the Bible, not "their own Bible". --Alterego 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is correct concerning most LDS, but that is not true for the Non-LDS Mormons.--Josiah 03:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, it is not specific enough! --Alterego 03:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 05:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

From what is written here, we are not dealing with conspiracy theories. If people in these groups have conspiracy theories about the Bible, they need to be explained in much moer detail. 66.155.200.129 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bible conspiracy theories form the cornerstone of some relatively modern Christian religious movements. Most notably The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see Mormonism), The modern day United Pentecostal Church (see the Jesus-Only doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism) assert that the Bible was deliberately modified (or at least carelessly allowed to be copied sloppily) to edit out what they consider to be the theology that supports their religious viewpoint. These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups. In addition these groups publish new books, which they hold are divinely inspired revelations, to support their translations.

Martin Luther, the Epistle of James, the Apocrypha and Armageddon

It may be worth note that Martin Luther suspected the Epistle of James to be a false book designed by Pharisees to introduce legalism into Christianity and undermine the doctrine of the Atonement (which, of course, the Roman Church had utilized to maintain control over it's perishoners).

Similarly, there is a mini conspiracy in the Evangelical community over the Apocrypha, in particular, the Book of Enoch (which some suggest was deliberately hidden, often in order to hide vital information concerning Helil Sheten and the nature of the End-Times, particularly in relation to the Nephilim and their connection to the UFO phenomena). Some have even shown curiosity over the Book of Jubilees due to Eschatelogical information as well. -- 69.248.43.27 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel was not in Israel

If it is, as it says, not a Bible conspiracy theory, why is it in the Bible conspiracy theory article? Especially when it is discussed at another article? Turly-burly 03:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of political correctness. If you want to understand it better, you could investigate on what very unwelcome persons such as Miguel Serrano (in fact a fascist) say; Serrano has also written about "The Visits of the Queen of Sheba" and C. G. Jung provided a forword. Foreigner

What does it matter if Serrano was/is a fascist? Does that make him wrong? Or just biased?--Tomtom9041 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tainted would be a better word.--71.242.127.31 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some say it was thought to have been whispered that...

• "critical scholars think..."
• "has been considered fraudulent by a majority of scholars..."
• "...the Sophia of the title is, in gnostic thought, the female counterpart to Christ."
• "...now considered genuine by a majority of scholars..."

I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the current scholarship. Could the editor add the works he/she used, and cite the claims to their authors? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to look up Sophia - Sophia (gnosticism). I think this shows how little attention is paid by some editors to current scholarship, and even to obvious wikipedia articles. Clinkophonist 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've specified my requests for citation with {{fact}} tags. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ManofRenown87 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing.Minidoxigirli 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, because frankly, a resounding laugh is all I have to say about this entire article. ManofRenown87 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this article needs work, but why laugh at this article? Is it because it contradicts your beliefs? - Greg - 12:01PM - 23 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.202.244 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Honestly I think most conspiracies are just ridiculously hilarious and overbearing examples of suspicion and paranoia thought up by a bunch of malignant intellectuals with nothing better to do because their jobs are terribly boring. But on the other side of things, I am a Bible believing Christian with a very childlike faith, and I do suppose that's part of why I laugh about it, but most of it's just an aspect of common sense. I'll also admit to a small bit of immaturity on my part. I'm not the most mature person when it comes to intellectual debates (not arguments). That immaturity might also have contributed to my laughter. Although, maturity has nothing to do with intelligence. But you know what? There will probably be a million things we'll never know, like whether or not Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene (even though she was as old as his mother), or whether or not there's a heaven or a hell. I suppose that is until we die, we won't know. So maybe we will find out the truth one day, won't we? ManofRenown87 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Constantine

This article doesn't seem to mention the common conspiracy theories of the Roman emperor Constantine supposedly imposing changes in the Bible onto the early 4th-century A.D. Church. AnonMoos 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because that is not a common conspiracy theory. Constantine had nothing to do with compiling the canonical scripture in the Bible as we know it today. That notion was first and only proposed by Dan Brown in his book The Da Vinci Code, in which it was a plot device he used to explain certain historical inconsistencies. The theory itself can be disproven by any 1st century historian who does not have his head stuck in his own rear end. ManofRenown87 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are sooooo incorrect ManofRenown87, try some researching. Conspiracies didn't start with Dan Brown. He just popularised them.--71.242.127.31 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would like someone to reseach most of the stuff in this article... there is a distinct lack of citation. If Dan Brown didn't come up with the Constantine stuff, then who did? Blueboar 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question... ManofRenown87 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And to anonymous user-dude, I didn't say "conspiracy theories started with Dan Brown" did I? Well the answer is no. Conspiracy theory is a very broad term, this article is talking about BIBLICAL conspiracy theories, not just conspiracy theories in general. What I said was that Dan Brown invented the notion that Constantine had anything to do with compiling the canonical Bible, and you should try some researching yourself if you actually think he did. Constantine never touched the canonical Bible. Say what you mean if you want people to take your counter-points seriously, or shut up. ManofRenown87 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about Bernard of Clairvaux

In fact, it was not Bernard who founded the cistercian order, as the article says. He was one of the most important thinkers of it, he was from one of the early generations of cistercian monks, but he wasn't the founder - the founder was Robert of Molesme.

David Icke and Joseph atwill

I separated the text in the section entitled "The Bible As A Lie: The New Testament" so that the David Icke text and the Joseph Atwill text are not mixed up together. As it stood, it was not representative of Atwill's writing in Caesar's Messiah. I left Icke's text alone, as I cannot comment on what is written about him. --SFDan 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

This article has a serious issue with the lack of sources. It does not surprise me that someone somewhere has come up with each of these theories, but none of them are cited. The only source listed in the references section is the bible (and that only indirectly)... the rest is more along the lines of "footnoted commentary". Please, locate reliable sources to back up the information in this article. Blueboar 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

In the intro this article states:

• A Bible conspiracy theory is any conspiracy theory that posits that much of what is known about the Bible is a deception created to suppress some secret, ancient truth. Some of these theories claim that Jesus really had a wife and children, or that the Knights Templar had secret information about the true descendants of Jesus; some claim that there was a secret movement to censor books that truly belonged in the Bible, etc.

I notice, however, that the section on the Knights Templar does not actually discuss them having any "secret information about the true descendants of Jesus". In fact, the section does not really contain anything about a Bible conspiracy as the article defines it. This information should either be added (with citations to who came up with the theory) or the section should be removed (along with the mention in the intro.) Thanks Blueboar 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one has responded, I will delete the material. Feel free to add it back with citations. Blueboar 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Knight's Templar were a bunch of European based war-mongers with some serious greed issues who were rumored to worship pagan demons. They didn't care about God, history or theology, they were in the Crusades for the wealth and power. If anyone had information about the life of Christ, it wasn't them. And if they did claim to know some terrible secret, what reason would anyone have to believe them? ManofRenown87 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! Nice rant. Did you clear that one right up, sources? More like Opinion. Cause I said so...nanny nanny boo boo!! --Tomtom9041 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Well... given the problems with citations mentioned above... perhaps the only way to get some work done on this article is the threat of deletion. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if it looks as if some citation work is being done. Please review WP:ATT and get to work. Blueboar 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok... the AfD debate resulted in a 'Keep'. People feel this topic is notable, and even though virtually none of the material is backed by any source they want an article on this. That is a typical result for just about any page with the words "conspiracy theory" in it... and about what I was expecting. This is actually fine with me... I nominated it for deletion more to highlight the problem with lack of citations than to actually get rid of the article. I find that often the threat of deletion inspires people to work on the article. Unfortunately, I don't think my plan worked. The problem still exists. There continues to be a distinct lack of citations here. Looking forward.... I have added a bunch of citation request tags where I see a crying need for sources. Hopefully someone will add them. I will wait about a month, and see if anyone actually does so. If it looks as if someone is working on finding citations, great... if not, I will start removing unsourced statements and sections per Wikipedia policy. Blueboar 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to give us a chance. Some of us are busy doing other things. Thanks. --Tomtom9041 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to give people a chance... but considering that I first raised my concerns about the lack of sources in this article last FEBRUARY (more than a month and a half ago) ... I think I have given people a chance. So... while I will give you yet more time... please move this up in your priority. The clock is ticking. Blueboar 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

removing statements without references

Last call folks... I need some citations and references. It's been two months since I first raised this issue (and two weeks since my last request) and still most of this article is unreferenced. I will start removing unreferenced text later this weekend. If I remove something you feel needs to be in the article, you can return it once you have located a source. Blueboar 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK... I have cut those things that were not even remotely referenced ... the article is basically gutted, so it will need some major clean up. I have left some material (primarily in the New Testiment section) where at least an author of a theory has been mentioned in the text, and where, thus, there is at least a potential that it could be referenced ... but these need actual citations to stay (simply claiming an author says something is not acceptable... we need a citation to where he/she says it). If they are not cited in a few weeks I will remove them as well. Blueboar 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even try checking the Wiki links in the article, most of which were already referenced, or did you just ignore them? Seems like you picked and chose your way thru, will revert the entire article.--72.78.136.244 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as picking and choosing goes... the only criteria I used was: were there any citations listed to back the statements. If there were, I left the material, if not I cut it. I made a judgment call if the article mentioned an author as that seemed to indicate at least the possibility of a citation being added.

As for the wiki links... no I didn't check them. The information in THIS article needs to be cited. If there are a ton of citations at linked articles then it should have been easy to add citations to THIS article during the two months that I have been asking for them. Feel free to add the material back WITH citations, but I will cut it again if citations are not provided. I am tired of being a voice in the wilderness on this issue. Blueboar 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now Bluebaer, aren't we being pecular...um..er...particular?--72.78.51.222 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it refers to things which are conspicuously not supported by the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so it doesn't have to be neutral... AnonMoos 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In my interpretation of Wikipedia principles everything has to be presented neutrally and Wikipedia itself can not take sides (non-neutrality in the title is very bad). Any article is free to cite who and how many people believe X is "non-mainstream" but an article's title is different and requires an even higher level of neutrality. zen master T 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to be "neutral" between the hypothesis that the earth is flat and the hypothesis that the earth is not flat. AnonMoos 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropiate to put discrediting in an article's title, such things have to be cited and put inside the article. zen master T 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite appropriate to me to refer to a theory alleging that a conspiracy occurred as a "conspiracy theory", what else? There is nothing biased about that.Unfree (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced material - continued

Well, it has now been over half a year since I requested citations for a lot of the material in the "New Testiment" section... and no citations have been given. It is one thing to say that "according to Author X, such and such is true"... but we need to include a citation to where Author X actually says this. I will give it a bit more time (perhaps a week), but if no citations are forthcoming, I am going to delete the uncited material. In the meantime, I have added a refimprove tag. Blueboar 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion done. If you wish to return the material, please do so with citations per Wikipedia policy. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm beating a dead horse here, but isn't the very notion of conspiracy theories going to make it difficult to find sources? I understand referencing is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, but I feel we've got to be a little loose here; I came to this page hoping to see a list of Bible-related conspiracies; what I found was a laughably underdeveloped article.

The article was Kept for a reason ... I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible, even without proper citation when necessary. But that's just me. Lawofone (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible"... I totally agree... "even without proper citation when necessary"... absolutely NOT. Citations are vital in an article such as this. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2014

I came here looking for a list of the "Biblical Conspiracy Theories" specifically those that involve serendipitous "discoveries" of OT Books that helped OT Kings cement their "Right To Rule" as well as the Pauline & Constantine ones, and to see others referenced to kick start research into those topics, but apparently Wiki does not consider such topics "notable", definitely not "the suppository of all wisdom" to quote Tony Abbott, Australian PM. -- 13:58, 21 July 2014 60.242.247.177

Thiering

Barbara Thiering does allege that Jesus married and had children by Mary Magdalene, but I don't believe she suggests that there was a conspiracy to keep it secret. Instead, she says that the method of correctly reading the narrative recorded in the New Testament was lost.Unfree (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl Doherty: no conspiracy

When I first saw it, I was a little bothered by the inclusion of Earl Doherty's work in the "further reading" section. It seems to suggest that his theory is an example of the genre being discussed. Doherty does not, in any useful sense, advocate any kind of conspiracy theory.

The article does say that only "some proponents" of mythicism are conspiracists. I would like to see more emphasis on the fact that many are not, particularly including the handful of reputable and well credentialed scholars and scholarly lay people who support mythicism. Doug Shaver 02:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Shaver (talk • contribs)

KJV-only

Should the KJV-only movement be added to this page? It's a conspiracy theory that claims every new translation is corrupted. 190.104.121.171 (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)