Talk:Bible/Archive 2

message: An anon recently add this site. This site response time is slow and seems to be duplicative of other resources already listed. On the good side I didn't see any ads and they claim to have advanced features for registering. However, I think it should be removed. Trödel|talk 14:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibleserver.com 

message: Now is the time to make an inventory of the opinions, please place your vote. Arguments pro and contra can be found above. Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The polling process has halted already several days ago. However, i do believe this poll should remain open, for another one hour and 23 minutes or so. By that time a full week has passed since the poll was opened by Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: After closing of the poll the outcome is counted as {1, 0, 3, 12, 1} favoring the option 'Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"' with an 2/3 qualified majority, to the effect that the article New Testament should keep the word 'Christian' right before the word 'Bible' in the first sentence of that article. I would like to call the assistance of adminastrators or sysops to confirm the outcome of this poll and act accordingly. Happy Eastern. Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion poll --> Bible vs Christian Bible 

message: Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Bible".
# Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible

message: Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible" at least once per article for disambiguation, "Bible" thereafter.
# Woodstone 13:56, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) Having "Christian Bible" throughout would feel unnatural, but a disambiguation at the beginning is useful.
# Omegatron But it's ok to abbreviate to "Bible" as long as it's painfully clear from context or has been disambiguated recently in the article. - 00:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
# Smoddy (tgec) 23:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Bible once, Bible thereafter

message: Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"
# Improv With the note that when disambiguated once in an article, it's acceptable to later refer to it by the non-disambiguated term.
# Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Bible

message: Woodstone, you cannot "split" a category and put user in different categories nbased on comments - they may have voted differently given the options. In particular JFW could be putb in either group -- Chris Q 11:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Trying to redefine peoples' votes after they have already made them is unsavory at best; if you want people to move their votes around, ask them to do it themselves. Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could put them back together into "Christian Bible" and somehow highlight the ones that say "but only for disambiguation" like me instead. - Omegatron 22:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
So are we ready to move on? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot change categories in existing poll 

message: "It is estimated that approximately 60 million copies of the entire Bible or significant portions are distributed."
1. Shouldn't that read "have been distributed" and
2. 60 million?  That ain't much when we're talking about the Bible.  Somebody that cares about this issue want to update that? SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of the Bible 

message: Here's what I say when someone asks me what is the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books written by pre-scientific people in the ancient world. When we read them we interprete, from the present, the ancient world as seen through their eyes. At best, we can only imagine their world. It is wise to be cautious. 13 April 2005 Charlie
:Point taken, but hardly of relevance to the article huh? JFW | T@lk 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   JFW | T@lk 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the Bible?

message: Before coming across this article, I never saw “Massoretic”written with only one “s”.  Am I old-fashioned?  The few books I have at my immediate disposal are not recent: one is Brown, Driver and Briggs: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.  They all have “Massoretic Text”, not “Masoretic Text”.
If I am wrong in using the perhaps old-fashioned spelling, someone can very easily change all to “Masoretic” at a single stroke.
Lima 15:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are used, but "Masoretic" is by far the more common usage.  For example, "Masoretic" gets 51,400 Google hits, whereas "Massoretic" gets only 7,140. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, please be extremely cautious about changing spellings within links; that typically breaks the link (as it did in this case). Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massoretic?  Masoretic? 

message: I changed the date for the close of the Hebrew canon from 100 CE to 200 CE.  I was sloppy leading to a technical error.  I thank Clem McGann for spotting it, and Silversmith for fixing it.  As to why I made the change: remember, dating is difficult.  In Daniel and the Mishnah there is reference to "the books" to refer to Jewish literature but many scholars think this was an inclusive term i.e. not designating a specific canon.  The word Jewish scholars use for "canon" — "holy books" doesn't appear in the Mishna or even the Talmud.  Zunz argues that the close of the canon was 110 CE, in the second century but damn close to the end of the first.  Other scholars explicitly argue for a second century dating (e.g. G. Wildeboer).  Bear in mind that there is the possibility of ideological bias; traditional Jews would prefer the earliest close of the canon possible.  One reason scholars give is that the Hebrew language of Koheleth is more like the language of the Talmud than is that of the Chronicler or Daniel or even Esther (although this is not considered conclusive by some).  But the sacredness of certain parts of the Ketuvim (Esther, Koheleth, Shir Ha Shirim) was disputed by some rabbis as late as the second century of the Common Era (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, fol. 7).  I admit that dating the close at the second century is a conservative taks.  But if we say that the books were canonized "between 200 BCE and 200 CE" that is certainly an accurate statement, whereas "Between 200 BCE and 100 CE" may very well not be accurate, and certainly is not agreed to by all scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The canonicity of none of these scriptures was debated; whether or not certain scrolls made the hands impure, or whether certain books should be considered esoteric knowledge, was.  In the 19th and early 20th centuries various scholars put forward the hypothesis (worded as fact) that these discussions were actually debates about canonical makeup.  Regardless, these discussions did not take place towards the end of the second century, but rather towards the end of the first and into the early part of second. The wording "around 100 CE" covers that. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think we're in agreement, then. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The close of the Hebrew Canon -- Explaining my change 

message: Quite ironically, there is no link here for the Hebrew version of this page. I would just add a link, but there is a problem - the Hebrew term for "bible", as far as I know, is "תנ"ך", Tanakh. But there is a different article in the English Wikipedia for it... can two different English articles correspond one Hebrew article? --Daniel 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Link for Hebrew 

message: The statistic about '60 million copies distributed every year' seemed to be obviously wrong, as discussed elsewhere on this talk page. I have replaced it with the total number of Bibles sold since 1815 (obtained from the Guinness Book of World Records); if someone can find a reasonable source for how many Bibles are sold or distributed each year, feel free to use that instead.  Drseudo 22:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '60 million' gone 

message: After explaining that The Bible can in fact refer to the holy texts of various religions, and so can be one of many possibilities, the introduction explains that it is sometimes referred to as 'The Good Book'. The next paragraph then gives some figures on the Bible's distribution. Neither of these actually include any clarification of which Bible is being referred to, but (to me at least), suggest a specific Bible.. Thomas Purnell 13:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Bible? 

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: My enjoyment of this facinating book was dampened by seeing several spoilers in the article.  Would a spoiler tag be prudent? - 69.251.98.253 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The Bible is not simply literature, you know. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely hilarious request, however. --Matt Yeager 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree!  My reason for thinking that spoiler warnings are not necessary is that even if someone reads the last chapter, they "still" don't know how it ends!  Ask 10 people who have read "Revelation" and you will get 12 diferent interpretations. :-)  Just silly me...    capitalist 06:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I nominate this for inclusion in BJAODN --Tydaj 23:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a spoiler warning actually was inserted into the Bible article once... I removed it and put it in BJAODN. I don't know if throwing this in BJAODN really improves things. --Matt Yeager 05:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't know that Stewie Griffin visited Wikipedia ("My, my. What a thumping good read! Lions eatting Christians, people nailing each other to two-by-fours. I say, you won't find that in Winnie the Pooh.") --Shawnc 08:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning 

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