Talk:Bible/Archive 3

message: This monstrosity of a page (monstrous in terms of size) was just trimmed by me.  I removed most of the external links to text editions (already found at the Bible translations article, which is linked here) and reduced the "See also" to "just the essentials".  Heck, we can't list EVERYTHING and still be concise, clear, and NPOV.  Hope the edits help make a better article.  KHM03 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too big! 

message: Why exclude the link to the Melchizedek Bible
* under section for online bibles?  The Melchizedek Bible translation online is side by side with the King James Version. There may or may not be a dark side to the Melchizedek Bible, i.e. Dominion of Melchizedek but don't see how that would impact on this online bible link.
:: No one answered so it seems no objection, so will reference it again.
:::Removed it.  It is a highly disputed (to be polite) project that has no place here. Its inclusion is POV.  KHM03 12:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  DOM may be highly disputed eccesiastical sovereignty, but how is an online translation of the bible POV?  That would mean that every other online translation of the bible is also POV.  Please don't confuse the dispute over the sovereignty of Melchizedek with a Bible translation that that soverignty is based on. Johnski 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This online translation is non-notable in addition to being POV, and yes, it is very easy to produce a POV version of the Bible.  Anyone can "translate" a Bible to say whatever they want.  The fact that YOU call it a "Bible translation" does not make it so, and certainly does not make it notable, especially to the Bible article. Jdavidb 23:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the translations linked (KJV, RSV, NIV, etc.) are well known and generally accepted (to varying degrees) by the academic community and the Christian community.  If we list the Melchizedek "translation", we'll have to list possibly hundreds of..."unique" works.  Yes, every translation is POV to a certain extent, but not quite to the degree of the Melchizedek version.  KHM03 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, the "Melchizadek Bible" appears to consist of only four books: Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, and Revelation. Its preface begins, "The Melchizedek Bible combines an interpretation of metaphor with the King James Version, guiding students to the hidden treasures of Holy Writ. While not all the books of the Bible are included in this work, the ones that are can serve as a guide to the interpretation of metaphor in the others." It does not even pretend to be a complete Bible, nor a translation, nor a paraphrase. Instead it is a sort of interpretive work combined with a known Bible text, covering a very small portion of what most would call the Bible. It has no place here. Wesley 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Amen.  Preach it.  KHM03 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melchizedek Bible 

message: Did there used to be an article comparing the Bible and Qu'ran? I've tried finding it in vain. So was it deleted or did I just imagine it up? --Tydaj 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible & Qu'ran 

message: (There is currently no text in this page)
--Error 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing at wikisource

message: *Here is a reason for removing links such as BibleGateway.com (NIV, ESV, etc.), scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the link Your donations keep the Bible Gateway going.  Not to mention that web masters can use wikipedia as a form of advertising to drive up hit counts.  That's always a good thing to keep advertising revenue going.  David D. (Talk) 23:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedia demands, as it should, that every mirror site give credit to Wikipedia.  Most sites also link to Wikipedia, where they will find a "Donations/Fundraising" link prominently displayed on every page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be tough to get some NPOV Bible links in here...it is the Bible after all, one of the most POV documents on earth.  But the translations linked to were linked because they are generally considered fine versions from an academic perspective...they are generally recognized as accurate translations by Christians and non-Christians alike.  Fortunately or unfortunately, they are found on these sites which also contain other religious ideas.  Until we can find "better" sites, we should stick with these.  KHM03 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *The noncommercial links both seem quite comprehensive.  What is it that the commercial sites are offering that the others are not? brenneman(t)(c) 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: **Popular, well known, and well received modern language translations such as the NIV and ESV (et al).  KHM03 00:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: **If the argument ws that we must provide links to these, the organisational pages   and  would be more appropiate. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly is the conflict of interest?  Is there something unethical about businesses, per se; or is it just this business?  A few of our articles link to sites that provide free online access to books, and are sponsored donations. Many of our articles have links that lead to book distributors who will charge you for the use of the book, and on top of that they pay for their websites with ads.  Numerous articles link to online news-services, some of which require paid subscriptions for access.   What is the special offense of BibleGateway that makes it so especially offensive? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  The links to publishers that you provide are both advertisements for the publisher's version.  I disagree with you that such a strictly commercial site, promoting their own product, is more appropriate than a site that pays these publishers in order to provide free access for you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, the sites listed (Bible Gateway and Crosswalk) list many translations, not just the NIV & ESV.  They list KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, NASB, TEV, Message, and many others.  They are sites on which one can easily compare one version to another.  KHM03 11:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links 

message: I deleted this paragraph:
:Alternatives to the standard documentary hypothesis include the view that Moses wrote the whole Torah, though most conservative scholars do not hold that Moses wrote the account of his own death, and there is room within the conservative viewpoint for an editor later than Moses putting together materials that largely came from Moses. Gordon Wenham, in particular, has argued that the materials of Genesis 1-11 date back to a time near the time they seem to be about. Conservative scholars have increasingly been attracted to the thesis that Moses compiled already-existing materials into the book of Genesis and wrote down and compiled many of the materials, but a later editor put it all into its final form. Christians have pointed to Jesus' reference to the Torah as the books of Moses, but that could simply mean the books associated with Moses or the books that Moses had a large hand in compiling.
...for two reasons.  First, it is argumentative, arguing against the documentary hypotheses.  But this argument is unnecessary and inappropriate.  The previous section makes it clear that many Jews did not and do not accept the documentary hypothesis, and believe that Moses wrote the Torah.  If someone believes this is not clear, then by all means, make it clearer -- but make it clearer by going to the section that lays out the older claim that Moses wrote the Torah and make it clearer, rather than add this to a section that is about a different point of view.  The last sentence about Jesus adds nothing to the article and is in any event speculative.  The claim that Conservative scholars are moving to the view that Moses compiled Genesis IS a new claim but frankly I question its veracity.  What is the evidence for this?  Who has argued this?  If the contributor responsible for this paragraph can provide verifiable sources and clarify this, I would absolutely support its inclusion ... in Wikipedia.  I am not sure that it belongs in this article, which does not go into detail about any of these debates (note, there is a link to the Documentary hypothesis article, but the paragraph provides no arguments for the documentary hypothesis.  I propose that all details for and against the documentary hypothesis be put in that linked article, not here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your edit 100%.  Well done.  KHM03 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted paragraph from "four sources" section 

message: (Comparison of different versions of the Bible) it worrys me how this became a dead link--Whywhywhy 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of different versions of the Bible 

message: This section from the Torah portion of the Bible article seems to stray from the standard of impartiatlity.  Perhaps is ought to be reworded and/or moved:
The New Testament teaches how through God's infinite grace, he came to us in the flesh, the person of Yeshua of Nazareth, commonly known as Jesus Christ, the messiah and saviour promised by God through the Prophet Isaiah, and died on the cross as an atonement for our sins, and how through his selfless sacrafice we all can inheret the eternal life and perfect fellowship with God that was lost in Gen. 3.
:I knew there was something wrong with the edits from 67.35.113.75 (talk • contribs). I've reverted the whole lot. JFW | T@lk 05:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah 

message: "By the Hellenistic period of Jewish history, Jews were divided over the nature of the Torah. Some (for example, the Sadducees) believed that the Chumash contained the entire Torah, that is, the entire contents of what God revealed to Moses at Sinai and in the desert."
What is the Chumash?
:Go to the section called "The Hebrew Bible."  Almost immediately below is a subsection called "The Torah."  read the first sentence of that subsection.  Since the point of the section in question is that there are two Torahs, written and oral, it would be confusing to use the word Torah to mean "just the written Torah."  Instead, we use "chumash" because that word refers to five specific written books, to refer to the written Torah. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Torahs 

message: Shouldn't it be pointed out that the Bible is completely different from its original form? I mean, stories were added, embellished, removed altogether. They have Jesus saying things he never said, and they removed lots of things he did say, etc. I mean, we're going for honesty here right?  - User:Angelic Wraith
:See Biblical criticism.  Thanks...KHM03 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also New Testament canon, which canon wasn't finalized until the fourth century. Prior to that, which form would you consider "original"? Wesley 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 

message: I removed this link  from the top of the External links section.  While I am firmly against censorship, I felt that it's inclusion was more inflammatory than anything.  It might be more appropriate if there was a separate "criticism" section. Any thoughts? Ohnoitsjamie 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no merit to the page.  It doesn'e explain why some people do not like the Bible.  It merely provides chapter and verse citations for passages we would reject today as morally repugnant or difficult.  So what?  Anyone who owns a Bible can find these easily; anyone who has read the Bible has read them.  The issue - for an encyclopedia - is (1) why do these passages appear in the Bible and (2) why do Bible-readers no longer obey or ascribe to them, or (3) how do contemporary Bible-readers make sense of these passages.  These are all important topics worth exploring in our article.  The website in question ignores them all.  It is simple anti-intellectual (and thus unencyclopedic) blather. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Evil Bible' link

message: I wish to know the names of people who were supposedly inspired by God to write the Bible.  Also, who contributed more to the writing of the Bible than any other man?  --66.81.22.73 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think scholars would agree that Paul of Tarsus is responsible for more New Testament books than any other writer (even if one just considers those deemed "authentic").  As far as Old Testament/Hebrew Bible writers, scholars really don't know who wrote the books.  Tradition asserts that Moses is responsible for the Pentateuch, but scholars by and large agree that while Moses may have had a hand in some written materials, and his influence certainly looms large, there were several writers/editors of those books.  So there's really no conclusive answer, but a list would likely include dozens of individuals.  KHM03 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the wise decision would be, "according to tradition" with an explaination about modern secular scholarship.  That hits both birds fairly and is often how secular scholars deal with it.  (AstralisLux 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Modern religious scholarship also affirms the same conclusions.  KHM03 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Authors of the Bible]] 

message: I have been looking at the WikiProject and I have been wondering why this particular WikiProject doesn't have a WikiProject notice. If there is, why isn't it on the list? Ghelae 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Template 

message: There doesn't seem to be an Wiki Version of the bible. (If I somehow missed it, please give me the link.) There are sites called the "WikiBible" or similar but these are bible study resources... not an original translation. 
The best translations of the bible (in my opinion) are the collaberative efforts, so it seems like the wiki method would be terrific.
Obviously, it's a big project so I'd like suggestions before I set it up.
One way, that comes to mind, is to post (wiki style) a public-domain version of the bible (let's say, the KJV) and let people revise from there. But, of course, this builds-in a translation bias. 
The other possibility is to just create blank books and chapters  linked to public domain verions of the Hewbrew and Greek testamets. (I'm not clear if there ARE readily available public domain versions of the Heberew/Greek bibles.)
Here are Greek and Hebrew quotes from the [e-Sword http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html] dowloadable bible: "Mat 1:1  Βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαυΐδ, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ."  "Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃" simply pasted in. 
Suggestions anyone?
--Calan 13:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On further thought, Wikipedia's no original research policy would preclude any attempt to write a wiki Bible translation. —Wayward Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to go back to school, neglected my own lesson plan. Now the PDF has two more prophecy fulfillments converted to Modernity Version with highlighted believes because they had already been translated in John 3. BTW the Netscape download manager has taken over my computer, maybe the PDF works in other configurations, but my IE said it was a corrupted file. Firefox just downloaded the revised PDF, wow. - Athrash | Talk 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about an original Wiki Translation of the bible?  

message: Wow! I didn't expect a response so fast. Thank you.
It would be an experiment, for sure, but only time would tell if it is "impossible."  I probably would have said that Wikipedia was impossible!  
In seminary, our classes worked collaboratively in translating several books of the bible. The process, itself, was very positive. Most of us were not great scholars but I think we came up with a pretty good translation of the books we did. (Mark and Galatians.) 
KJV?  I'm thinking that's a bad idea.  A strict English transliteration would be more neutral for a starting point. There are several floating around. 
What does it contribute? For sure, you could argue that English does not need another translation. But, on the other hand:
* a wiki-style translation would be unique in the history Christianity. In every translation I know of, there's a point where it is "received." The Wiki Version would forever be a work in progress... not unlike the whole field of translation.
* All the public domain translations, that I'm aware of, are either old or abandoned. The new, good ones, are under copyright. When the Wiki Version is mature, it could be compiled and ported for all kinds of uses. 
* there is a tremendous level of biblical study by lay Christians... it would be very interesting to see how a democratically translated bible turned out.  Plus, of course, input from non-Christians would add an element not present in most translations.
--Calan 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On further thought, Wikipedia's no original research policy would preclude any attempt to write a wiki Bible translation. —Wayward Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to go back to school, neglected my own lesson plan. Now the PDF has two more prophecy fulfillments converted to Modernity Version with highlighted believes because they had already been translated in John 3. BTW the Netscape download manager has taken over my computer, maybe the PDF works in other configurations, but my IE said it was a corrupted file. Firefox just downloaded the revised PDF, wow. - Athrash | Talk 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CALAN's response

message: The article might need the  tag. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incivil comments like that are inappropriate, even as jokes.  Shame on you.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tag 

message: For the second time in one month, someone tried to post that the Bible is Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Not only is this inappropriate, non-historic, but it's limited only to English. It has been deleted by active members here, thankfully. (AstralisLux 08:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuteness is vandalism 

message: Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal request for comment 

message: Request that someone who knows about this please review and comment on the recent set of edits to the article. I have currently semi-protected it because I can't tell if it's being vandalised or just POV. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New Testament]] & [[Talk:New Testament]]