Talk:Book of Nahum

It seemed to be all over by...

Really? I mean, c'mon. I realize Wikipedia articles do take effort to create, but the use of phrases like this in pretty much any college-level paper——let alone an encyclopedic article——would land you a "C" at best. 104.253.38.11 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Historical Context"

The words "remarkably fulfilled" do not invoke a neutral tone at all. The "historical context" section could use some citations, as well, referring to dates and events. Carter Massey]] 19 August 2013

I just came to the talk page to make exactly the same point, but I see you raised this last year, so I'll do something now.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Era of Dates

Currently, within the article, some dates use the christian system, while some use the neutral CE/BCE system. I would suggest going to the BCE/CE system considering it is more neutral, the article is about a Hebrew Bible book, and that it would make this article consistent with most of the other articles on the books of the Hebrew Bible (almost all of them use CE/BCE). However, it should be noted that the era first introduced into this article (thus the one that is current considered the default per WP:ERA) is the christian system (introduced in the article's initial edit). Can we get a consensus to switch to the CE/BCE system? If not, we need someone to go through and change the dates in the article to conform with each other (if using the christian system, I can't do it). Thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You can make the page consistent yourself, but be advised that the community consensus is to use whichever system of dating was used in the article first (in the earliest edits). --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates doesn't add up

The book of Nahum is supposed to talk about events in the 6th and 7th century BC, but is dated to the 8th century BC. Something is missing. It just doesn't add up (unless I'm missing something. Am I?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaibh (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The book's writing style and circumstances indicate it was written about one hundred years before the events it describes, and that is one of the reasons it's considered a prophetic book. If it wrote about the events after the fact, it could hardly be considered prophetic, right? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal (Nahum 2)

I'm happy to withdraw the merger proposal now, but note that User:Auric has also now been looking at the merger proposal. I will withdraw the proposal unless there are any objections. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal withdrawn - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Nahum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127035404/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/courses/bible/creation%20myths.htm to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/courses/bible/creation%20myths.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)