Talk:Tribe of Ephraim

message: The article presently says "Among the causes which operated to bring about the disruption of Israel was Ephraim's jealousy of the growing power of Judah.", and then segues into a brief discussion about the territorial allotment of Efrayim, and the rising prominence of Jerusalem, as though Jerusalem were in the allotment of Yehuda.  Someone should really fix that up... TShilo12 07:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem, Allotment 

message: I've made a few changes to fix, both doctrinally and grammatically, the "non-jewish sects" section.  First of all, there's not enough information to need another subtitle, i.e. non-jewish sects, and it's grammatically incorrect in that in an article about one of the ten tribes (ONE of which being Judah), fundamentally all the other nine are not Jewish.  I know what you're thinking, but it's just too confusing to people who don't know the difference in Israeli, Israelite, Judahite and Jew.  Second, the LDS part.  While many Mormons believe they are scripturally or by revelation descendants of Ephraim, they are quite split on whether this descendancy is biological or metaphorical.  And while I'm sure someone used the scripture given, it's not generally used.  And everyone believes the tribes were lost and lost most if not all of their identity.  That's part of JudaeoChristianity, as is believing that the prophecies of Isaiah refer to the futures of the tribes of Israel.  So it's a little weird to call that a Mormon belief.  While we're at it, last thing--there is no reason to say "No denomination of Judaism... affirms to the Samaritan or LDS beliefs, nor beliefs adhered to by anyone else."  A that's a disclaimer that's utterly irrelevant.  Second, it goes without saying.  If they believed all the LDS stuff, they'd be LDS.  But since no one knows who Ephraim is and few claim to have a guess at all, it's irrelevant to put a disclaimer minimizing the non-Jewish view, if the Jewish view is being represented at all in the first place...  --Mrcolj 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up of "non-Jewish" lines 

message: I don't see eye to eye with this definition of Gideon as the greatest judge, and I think it is opinion. Personally, I think that Samuel, who was the last of the Judges and the most prominent, having a central role in the stories of Eli, King Saul, and King David. Deborah is probably the most famous as possibly the first female world leader of all time. But since this too is opinion, I believe I will change the wording. Though he was not necessarilly the greatest judge, he was quite prominent.
:Whether Gideon was the greatest judge is not a fact that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Anyway, I believe Gideon was a member of the Tribe of Manasseh, so he shouldn't feature in this article at all, except for being listed as a member of the related Tribe of Manasseh. --84.26.117.62 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gideon was the greatest? 

message: The article still reads too much as though it is a historical account. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the objection. I agree that there is a lot of unnecessary material here, but I would not have called it POV.Ewawer (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads as though it is history, I'm not sure how I can explain that other than to say that an awful lot of people think the early history of Israel as described in the Bible is inaccurate, David and Solomon didn't exist as portrayed, etc. It should be clear what is just biblical account and what, if any, is verifiably historical. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case then all historical statements based on the bible should be discarded as unreliable, etc. In fact it is a historical text, subject to the usual critical analysis and qualifications, as applicable. It can't just be summarily dismissed away - otherwise there is nothing left.Ewawer (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some editing on the historicity of the accounts. I've set the Bible's account side-by-side with modern scholarly commentary on the account. There is still probably more work needed.Alephb (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

text: It’s a shame that so many of you spend your time trying to disprove the Bible. 2600:1700:4FC0:3960:6D9C:10CB:C9F1:5F17 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  "trying to disprove the Bible" The Bible lacks historicity, and includes myths. Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV