Talk:Bible/Archive 5

message: I removed this paragraph from the intro because: (1) The first sentence, while apparently true, is a specific historical insight that begs many questions about the secular and religious scholarly work over the past several centuries; there's a whole book to write just on that one issue. (2)The second sentence confuses secular and religious scholarly work, and part of it is also overly specific for the intro (specific possibilities of archaeological sites matching up with biblical descriptions-- there's a whole book's worth of material right there too). ... Kenosis 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the intro is not really an intro, seems to be a place people have placed items of criticism rather than facts. I agree with a previous post, we need more 'introductory type info' number of books, authors, current scholars view so dates written etc.. am on the road this week, will look at this next week and see if I can come up with something all can agree on. Znuttyone 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material from intro put here for possible use in a place other than the introduction

message: This article hada "Criticism of the Bible" section but not a "Advocacy of the Bible" section.  I added a Advocacy of the Bible section.  ken 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was a POV/biased article until...

message: I we reverting some obvious vandalism on this article when I also reverted the addition of the name "Alexander Gibson" to the criticism section. There was no link to this person and no reference as to why he was added, so I am assuming that it was vandalism as well. If this is a mistake, please add the name back in along with a Wiki link or a reference. -Orayzio 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Gibson 

message: WHy is the the first section in an article for the Bible a big reproduction of the Tanakh article? The Tanakh has it's own article. I'm considering a drastic change to this article along the lines of reordering the presentation of the info and removing duplicated article type info. Thoughts?  --Home Computer 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Jews, the Tanackh is the Bible.  NPOV requires that we include not just the Christian Bible but the Jewish Bible as well.  Since many books of the Christian Bible were written after the books in the Hebrew Bible, I think it makes sense regarding the order of presentation to present the Hebrew Bible first. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the overlap of the Jewish Bible with the first section of the Christian Bible means that the arrangement seems logical to me. Lostcaesar 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well no kidding. My point is, there allready IS an article for the Tanackh. The Christian Bible mainpage is this one. Jews don't refer to thier text as "the Jewish bible". I am going to remove all duplicated material soon except for a concise intro to the main discussion unless there is a wikifiable reason not to.. Remember, the phrase Bible refers to the Chritian text 99% of the time. And the Hebrew Bible has a great page in and of itself and doesn't need to be duplicated. Peace. --Home Computer 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe for you Bible means Christian Bible 99% of the time.  for me it means Tanakh 100% of the time.  So, I gues you and I have different points of view.  Guess what?  this is why we have an NPOV policy.  both views must be represented in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright sorry for getting sarcastic, almost always the term Bible means Old and New testaments of the Christian text. Almost never does the term Bible mean "just the old testament". Actually, lets move this discussion down below where others have joined if you dont mind. --Home Computer 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discussion results.. I was totally wrong. :) peace. --Home Computer 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of presentation

message: Some keeps putting vandelism into the article, such as:
* God said "thou must sex daily, or thine dang wilst fallith off, like a lepers nose"
Vandelism is against the Wikipedia rules. Whoever's doing it, STOP!!!
: This is happening with some consistency to this article. This is the very weakness of the system, and it is vandalism (note the spelling) like this that causes the collapse of good-faith projects such as Wikipedia. I hope that we can guard against these attacks that demonstrate nothing more than the contributor's lack of respect for other people and the weakness of their own beliefs (or lack thereof). - Yonah mishael 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I am preparing to slim down and reorganize some of this article. It seems pointless to me to include "The Old testament" in a the section on the "Christian Bible" and the Tanak in the section on the "Hebrew Bible". In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there. For other uses of the word Bible (eg Satanic Bible, Mechanics Bible, Koran, whatever) the disambiguation page should serve well. As to the material related to Judaism, include only what is pertinant the discussion on what is commonly called the Bible.. so maybe a concise few paragraphs on History, pre Christ cannonicity, translation, etc.  
Lets get this article up to par. and as always CITE!!! Don't do original research here, CITE the NOTable Experts. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, before any of this happens, we should probably reach consensus that this article should be about the Christian Bible. As it stands, the article is currently about the broader concept of the Bible in the Judeo-Christian traditions. We have an article about the term "Hebrew Bible" which is used by acedemics to describe the set of books called the Old Testament by Christians, and the Tanakh by Jews. So those two articles are basically POV forks of the same topic. Then we have this article, which describes both the Christian Bible, and the Jewish Bible. It seems like there is a lot of redundent material on wikipedia, but I personally feel that the article, in order to be NPOV, should cover both Christian and Jewish bibles. Maybe we can condense material that is already covered in spinout articles, but I think it would be a step in the wrong direction to cut the Jewish POV out of this article, and make the word Bible on wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with Christian scriptures|Andrew c]] 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying remove the section on the Hebrew Bible or not include what other religions use as thier holy texts but The focus needs to be squarely on what people consider the Bible. Jews do not call thier sacred texts the Jewish Bible, Jews don't call it the Hebrew Bible.. The first big section in the article on "THE BIBLE" should consist of what is commonly considered the Bible. --Home Computer 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  "In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there" is not a plan for a class act article, it is a plan for a major NPOV violation.  "The Bible" as such must include the Jewish and Christian Bibles.  The Tanach is not the same thing as the Old Testament.  If anything, this article could benefit from some more explanation as to why they are not the same.  I agree that there are some redundancies.  Perhaps this page should not even exist, and should serve as a disambiguation page for the articles on the Biblical canon, Tanakh, and Christian Bible.  I suspect that all valid information in this article can be (if it is not already0 distributed among those three articles.  But let's have some discussion before making such a change.  In the meantime, if the article is "Bible"  any attempt to rewrite this from an explicitly Christian POV is a violation of NPOV and I will revert it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Slurb, please review the article Tanack.  it is not the same as saying "Jewish Bible" The Tanack actually is only the books of the Herew origin that Christians use as well. It actually is the same thing as the old testament as held by protestant Christian religions. --Home Computer 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the two above statements by Andrew and Slrub, and I would like to make the following observations.  Part of the confusion I think is on the use of phrases like "Jewish Bible" and "Hebrew Bible".  The proper term is Tanakh; furthermore, calling the Old Testament any of the three aforementioned labels is inaccurate.  As has been stated previously, these are not the same.  The article here nicely avoids this mistake, but many other articles on wikipedia mistakenly treat "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as synonyms.  If there is any improvement to be made to end confusion, it should be on the proper use of these terms.  As for removing the content about the Tanakh / Jewish bible from this page, as said above, I reject this, for many reasons, not least of which because it would remove vital information — one's understanding of the Christian bible declines when it is severed from its Jewish roots and context.  This is an article on the Bible: a Judeo-Christian entity.Lostcaesar 12:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Lostceaser, do you oppose my proposal to turn this into a disambiguation page for Biblical canon (which would describe the process by which different canons formed, and what the differences are between different canons), Tanakh and a new article, Christian Bibles?  By the way, I am not committed to this proposal and have no objection if everyone else wants to keep this article more or less as it is.  But I'd like to know your reasoning regarding the proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm torn over what we should do. My first reaction to turning this page into a disambig page was positive. But I was confused on how a Christian Bibles article would look (would it just be this article minus the Hebrew Bible section?), and how this differed from Home Computer's suggestion. It seems like every section we would like to cover has a spinout article to cover it, so we face a lot of the same issues that come up at Jesus. I think it may be best to keep the article in the current format, but perhaps doing a better job of sumarizing content that is covered in the spinout articles.--Andrew c 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slruben, I am really not sure; my first reaction is, on the one hand, that restructuring is needed, but on the other hand the Bible is a richer concept than just a canonical list, and it is the richer concept that I think people regularly identify with the Bible.  Also, though there are different canonical lists for Christian groups, and in that sense different Christian Bibles, concerning the richer meaning there is a different sort of line of division and similarity.  Just some thoughts.Lostcaesar 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. "The Bible" as a concept is potentially huge. For such a prevelantly discussed topic there deserves to be a rich and proffessionaly written article. --Home Computer 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe you are mistaken in the approach of this article. This article is not devided into Old/New Testament section using the strange terms "Hebrew Bible" for the fomer and "Christian Bible" for the latter. Instead, the article is broken into POVs. The first main section deals with the Jewish POV. The second main section deals with the Christian POV. As Lostcaesar so keenly points out, there is a little redundency in that the same basic books get covered twice due to the "Old testament" vs "TNK" issue. So the reason why Old Testament (and New Testament) are subheadings to the Christian Bible section is because they are both included in the Christian Bible (just as Torah, Nevi'i, and Ketuvim get subheadings for the Hebrew Bible section). Maybe there needs to be restructuring, editing, condensing, what have you. But I stand firm in my belief that including the Jewish POV in this article is not only important, but necessary to be inclusive per NPOV policy. Why is it confusing that you get this page when you type in "bible"? Maybe spelling out your concern can help us make this page better. Do we need to make it even more clear that the word "bible" is used by both English speaking Christians and English speaking Jews?--Andrew c 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. restructuring, not deletion. I think the old testament section in the Christian Bible needs to be completely reworked, but then what would it be but basically a copy of earlier stated material. This somehow should be reconcilled. And I'm not sure where you get this from but Jews, especially in my family.. do NOT use the word Bible to describe the torah or anything else.. so a Jewish POV on the phrase "the Bible" is not accurate here. --Home Computer 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is arguing for what you are saying. A Christian POV argument would be completely wrong here and no one is pushing for that. We need to come to a consensus on what the world means when the Bible is used and right an NPOV article on that.. the current version is looking great in my opinion. No POV sections, one section dealing with the books of the TNK and the Old testament. Another section dealing with the New Testament. It looks good. The old information is not disapearing. --Home Computer 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with you. I think you have mistaken me for Home Computer? Or did I say something that came out wrong, because really, I agree with you.--Andrew c 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Yeah I wrote on his page that I think he meant me not you. Either way the article looks great right now. And I think everyone (including me) is happy with it. Peace/Shalom. --Home Computer 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. IZAK, Slrubenstein, Lostcaesar, and Dovi, in addition to myself (basically everyone who has thrown in on this) has been AGAINST merging the OT section with the TNK section. I hate to speak for everyone, but I for one am not happy with the current version. Please see my comment below (and hopefully others will chime in to correct me if I am wrong, or support me).--Andrew c 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian adopt the TNK as thier own. Do you propose a new OT section that completely duplicates the TNK section over a note withing the TNK section denoting the Christian difference? --Home Computer 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that view is appropriate expressed by notable sources then I think it would definately be appropraite to demonstrate those differences between the TNK and the OT in the Hebrew Bible section.. with citations of course. --Home Computer 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge TNK section with Old Testament section

message: Question for User:Andrew c are you seriously proposing that the factual and true source for the Bible as a whole, which happens to be the Jews and Judaism, and their teachings about the Bible which are the foundations of the Bible (both as "Old Testament" or "New Testament" or as simply the originators of the "Hebrew Bible") should be cut out of this article? So what kind of Bible is this? A Christian Bible? Guess what...big problem...the Christians did not "invent" the Bible, the Jews did! Indeed without what the Jews taught in their Tanakh, the very notion of a "Messiah" makes no sense and has no context, because guess what, Christians did not "invent" the concept of a Messiah, the Jews did! Thus if the fact and truth is too much for anyone to handle, that the Jews are the originators of both the original Bible and of the notion of Messiah, then one should go back and brush up on the basics of the facts about both the origin of Christianity and what Judaism contributed to it. Wikipedia is not designed to convey the "pure theological view" of any one group, rather, as an encyclopedia it conveys the facts. And the facts are that (a) First there was a  Torah and a Tanakh held and taught by Judaism for Jews only, and that is most certainly referred to as The Bible by Jews and by Judaism (since all the word "Bible" means is "book" a very innocuous word, if ever there was one.) Then (b) along came the early Christians and built a story about a Jewish person called Jesus who was convinced that he was the Jewish Messiah and followers that came after him postulated that he qualified based on passages in the Hebrew Bible (they did not bring proofs from any other sources - because there were none, it was all a Jewish in-house affair), then the followers of Jesus decided that the world needed a "New Testament" so they wrote it, and the only way a "New Testament" makes any sense in the first place is if there must be a reliable entrenched "Old Testament" in place already that was always accepted as true and withstood the test of time. So let's resist revisionism to pretend that Christianity and the New Testament had an "immaculate conception" and came out of thin air when in fact and in truth both Christianity and its later texts came directly out Judaism and the "Old Testament" - and the catch is that Jews do NOT call it or regard it as an "Old Testament," God forbid, but as an ongoing living Torah and Tanakh - so no-one will ever be able to escape or disregard those facts. So to now write a contrived article that will contain only the Christian POV will not do any justice to either Christianity or to the truth. Finally, this article has always tried to respectfully clarify the terminology used by both Christianity or Judaism in their own contexts, and in turn the rest of the article was built around that. It was a good solution and has worked well to introduce readers into the totality of this subject and not just to vainly hoped for Christian version. IZAK 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is arguing for what you are saying. A Christian POV argument would be completely wrong here and no one is pushing for that. We need to come to a consensus on what the world means when the Bible is used and right an NPOV article on that.. the current version is looking great in my opinion. No POV sections, one section dealing with the books of the TNK and the Old testament. Another section dealing with the New Testament. It looks good. The old information is not disapearing. --Home Computer 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with you. I think you have mistaken me for Home Computer? Or did I say something that came out wrong, because really, I agree with you.--Andrew c 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Yeah I wrote on his page that I think he meant me not you. Either way the article looks great right now. And I think everyone (including me) is happy with it. Peace/Shalom. --Home Computer 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. IZAK, Slrubenstein, Lostcaesar, and Dovi, in addition to myself (basically everyone who has thrown in on this) has been AGAINST merging the OT section with the TNK section. I hate to speak for everyone, but I for one am not happy with the current version. Please see my comment below (and hopefully others will chime in to correct me if I am wrong, or support me).--Andrew c 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian adopt the TNK as thier own. Do you propose a new OT section that completely duplicates the TNK section over a note withing the TNK section denoting the Christian difference? --Home Computer 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that view is appropriate expressed by notable sources then I think it would definately be appropraite to demonstrate those differences between the TNK and the OT in the Hebrew Bible section.. with citations of course. --Home Computer 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do NOT merge DIFFERENT terms that express different concepts 

message: It was stated in the above comments that "over 99% of the time refers to that Christian text that has sold more copies than any other book in existance [sic, existence]", but this is simply an inflated statistic that relates only to the contributor's personal religious experience. As a member of a Reform Jewish Congregation in the United States, I would like to add my experience that we regularly use the term "Bible" to describe our religious text. Granted, in Hebrew we have different terms (most notably, Tanakh and Mikra), but it is a very common thing to simply say "Bible." In our synagogue, we do not say "Jewish Bible" or "Hebrew Bible" because in the circumstance that would be redundant. This article should NOT (IMHO) be slimmed down to discuss only the Christian meaning while relegating all other pertinent perspectives to footnotes or subsections. - Yonah mishael 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Two Cents — "Bible" is Inclusive

message: Why is the Christian tag placed on the section speaking only of the New Testament as if the "Christian Bible" was just the New testament. This is another confusing presentational issue I plan on correcting..
*Hello? Who's speaking please? Kindly sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that (a) you can gain credibility, and (b) people can get some sense of who saying what to whom. Thanks. IZAK 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Tag?

message: LostCesar and anon person, I put up a tag and this discussion section because I can see the valid points you were making but thought it would be more appropriate to have the discussion here where anyone else coud chime in. ;) My two cents is that the info is pertient buyt just needs to be appropriately wikified. Peace. --Home Computer 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DOH! I keep forgetting to login. I'm not actually anon. I don't pretend to be the most up on the latest Wiki styles and formatting of what should go where. Sorry. I don't mind someone moving the content into a different area, as long as the facts are kept straight.  :) Shalom. --Solascriptura 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) It looks like good info, also I agree with where you've placed it. I'm not sure what LoastCesar meant. The only suggestion I have is to make sure all info is presented in a "this is what's taught" manner as opposed to "this is the truth" manner but it looks like you did that pretty well too. Peace. --Home Computer 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that this is not the main article.   That much detail belongs in the article on the Biblical canon.  This is just a summary here.  It is not about the Biblical canon, only the Bible.  I am not trying to undo good faith changes (though I think this needs to be sourced), but they should be in the correct place.  Please move this information into the main artile.  Lostcaesar 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, i see your point. I agree that there is allot of info in that section that may be placed more appropriately in the article on Biblical Canon and concisely refferenced here only briefly. I've removed the tag and leave it up to you two to figure out how to copy all the info over and slim it all down for this one.. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rv'd the section again.  The old text, which is unsourced, is saved in the history of pages, so the contributor can chase down sources and add the material to the main article in due time.  The summary here will remain, and can be changed or updated as the main article develops. Lostcaesar 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How does this add to the discussion on Canon? --Home Computer 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat, I think the older structure was a fitting framework.  The areas I want improved are concerning the life of the Bible, rather than just its conception, such as its significance in Syriac and Latin traditions, hitherto unmentioned.  The current changes seem to make that sort of implementation more difficult.  If I wanted to add a section on the Vetus Latina, where would I put it?  New Testament?  It doesn't work.  Lostcaesar 07:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon Dispute

message: Added  due to discussions veering off. IZAK 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial template 

message: I hope that it was not out of place for a "newcomer" to this page to revise the opening section without a big discussion.  I felt it needed to be more balanced, and perhaps an outsider could take a cooler look at the issues.  Also the etymology and attributions as to "who did what and when" were lacking in references which could be provided.  Best regards.  --SFDan 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have any immediate objections to what you wrote, and also thank you for the obvious effort.  Let's see what others have to say.  i can see some room for style/editorial changes but in substance I like what you did.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah that link you posted demonstrates that the title "The Hebrew Bible" is the term being used (at least by American authors). I hate to get back to this topic but it seams that in English "the Bible" even though it's used sometimes to refer to the TNK is not the definitive nor scholarly term used for Jewish Holy Books (as the title "The Hebrew Bible" maybe) in the same sense as "The Bible" is for the Christian Holy books, am I wrong about that? The only reason it matters is for us to come up with a clear, documentably accurate definition. :) Our definition now looks a bit.. hairy.--Home Computer 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: Ok, the introduction has gotten way out of control. Every usage of the Word Bible is now being presented and it doesn't look good.
I agree with what some others have demonstrated as what should be up there, using some dictionaries as a refference we should list the most used meanings of the Word Bible, probably in order of prevalance. It looked good a few days ago but now looks kinda junky.
What was wrong with this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&oldid=81868516 in my opinion that def listed the major definitions using the most prevelant first. What was lacking from that def? --Home Computer 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 is irrelevant; 3 could be handeled through a disambig. page, and is not entierly relevent either. Lostcaesar 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that 4 and 3 are unnecessary and should be handled on a disambiguation page (I only kept them there out of historic reasons when I offered my solution).  I suggest that the disambiguation comment at the top of the article be changed to  "This article ia about the sacred writings of both the Jewish and the Christian religions known as The Bible.  For other uses see Bible disambiguation.", and then I would be quite comfortable and would encourage the removing of the other meanings from the article.  They are already on the disambiguation page, so that does not really need to change at all.  --SFDan 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that it will be an improvement when some of this introductory material is judiciously eliminated, and other parts are parceled out through the article.  Meanwhile, my main objection is that the lead section is just too big.  If it's going to stay as is for a while, it should at least be moved below the fold into an "Etymology and Usage" section or some such!  Wareh 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem if the longer etymology moves into another section, as long as the "old" (before revision) eymological conjecturing or misrepresentation in the first section stays out.  --SFDan 05:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Home Computer, If it looked so nice at 14:37 why did you change it at 15:40.  Dividing the first sentence into two (one of them being an incomplete sentence, at that) does not add value to the article.  The previous sentence was inclusive and respects both religions' use of the term "Bible"; the revised sentences marginalizes or creates a secondary meaning.  I don't particularly think its important in which order they appear in the dictionary-- it isn't a convincing argument at all for this revision.  Besides there was no concensus around that issue.  There was simply no discussion of it at all.  IMO.  --SFDan 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop making changes intended to downplay the use of the term in Judaism. Contrary to your edit summary claim, there's no consensus whatsoever for your continually doing that. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The dictionary definitions merely proved that both Judaism and Christianity used the term "Bible" for their holy scriptures, something you denied. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a little while back. Several people have pointed out where i was wrong and I've thanked them for it all over this discussion page. Now what's the deal with changing your mind on the definitions that should be used? --Home Computer 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No-one has "changed their mind on the definitions that should be used"; you're pretending agreement for your edits when no such agreement ever existed. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep pretending an agreement when there is none. The introduction has listed the Bible as the Jewish and Christian scriptures for many, many months. In the past few days you've been trying to remove, and subsequently downplay, any reference to them being Jewish scriptures. No-one else here agrees with your doing this, so please get consensus for your proposed changes before making them. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for many months it was the same. But now we have a new discussion showing an agreement for something else. What was being proposed was the order and the content within the definition. Allow the definitions to be determined by relivance as displayed in the dictionary or by most used definitions. Please discuss. --Home Computer 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreement for anything else, and never was; otherwise you wouldn't have to keep reverting people. You've reverted 3 people so far, and are now at 3 reverts for the day. Please don't make it 4. Jayjg (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 reverts. The first the concern was that they needed to be in the same sentannce. The two reverts I've done were both yours. All 3 of your reverts were on mine.. like you've got some personal thing against me. --Home Computer 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just so you're very, very clear on this: Intial edit, first revert, second revert, third revert. Every time you put Christianity first you are reverting. I have nothing against you, but I want to make sure you understand this, because if you revert again that is the report that will be going to WP:AN/3RR, and you will inevitably be blocked for it. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concencus Needed on Introductory Paragraph

message: I discovered this dispute through Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and in my opinion there's no need for administrator intervention.  I would like to caution the editors here to observe particular sensitivity in their postings.  Religious faith is a matter where people often hold deep beliefs that aren't easily swayed, and where people are often swift to take offense.
Since this appears to be primarily a content POV dispute rather than a civility issue, I'd also like to point out something that appears to have slipped past the collective POV filter.  The perspective that editors refer to as Protestant both here and in the article text would be more accurately characterized as conservative Protestant.  Broadly speaking, a hallmark of liberal Protestantism is skepticism toward Biblical inerrancy.  At the liberal extreme, among Quakers and Unitarian Universalists, no formal doctrine exists.  The most liberal Protestants may regard no definition of the Bible as canonical, and while they value the Bible in its various forms, they regard all forms of spiritual seeking as worthy of respect - hence the Bible exists on a rougly equal level with the Koran, the Rig Veda, and other sacred texts.  I'm not a religious scholar, but I think it's worth pointing out what appears to be an inadvertent shared POV in this article and discussion.  Regards, Durova 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for a) looking in on the personal attack allegations and b) throwing in your 2 cents. I think the issue of the broad use of the term "Protestant" is definately valid. --Andrew c 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside comment 

message: I find this whole debate very surprising, as I have never before heard anyone even suggest that what I call "the Bible" is not really "the Bible."  I suppose the following is the quintessential "original research," but the vast majority of Jewish people who I have known (including myself) refer to the Jewish version of the Bible as "the Bible."  This may be because the vast majority of the Jewish people I know almost always use the English, and not the Hebrew terms for things.  I have even heard Jewish people, and I probably have done this myself, refer to the Jewish version of the Bible as "the Old Testament."  I now realize that this is incorrect, for several reasons.  However, the fact (or at least my observation) is that few Jewish people realize that there is any difference between what we call "the Bible" and what Christians call the "Old Testament."  The point is that, except for those who use the Hebrew word, Jewish people quite often call our "holy book" the "Bible."  As a result, both Jews and Christians have the "Bible," it is just not the same collection of writings.   6SJ7 16:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some "Original Research"

message: The line "The documentary hypothesis posits that the Written Torah has its origins in sources who lived during the time of the monarchy or later..." has the first appearance of the term "monarchy".  It doesn't say which monarchy, or give dates. It's presumably the "Hebrew Monarchy", from roughly 1000BC, but it doesn't say.--John Nagle 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey John, what an interesting surprise to find you suddenly editing this article that I've been rather intensively involved with in the past couple of days, and which you've never edited before. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there's a page I can link to called "United Monarchy." Also, is there a policy against following a nemesis around and trying to keep them in check? Jonathan Tweet 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy? 

message: Given the controversial nature of the article, suggest that we move from bibliography-style sourcing with all sources in a mass at the end to footnote-style sourcing, particularly for controversial sections and disputes between e.g. conservative/religious and liberal/academic scholars. Jewish and Christian perspectives, etc. Footnote-style sourcing permits sourcing individual positions and claims, identifying whose point of view it is and what evidence there is to support it. Understanding that it would be too big an undertaking to switch everything at once, I suggest that we do it for new edits and content added from here on, and particularly that we use it for content added to resolve or distiguish POVs for disputes and controversies, as they arise. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote-Style Sourcing 

message: This article could use a lead paragraph that summarizes the article itself. See WP:Lead Jonathan Tweet 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead paragraph 

message: Could someone please explain why the contradict template has been added? --Shirahadasha 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by ArnoldBeckham on Nov 10.  I removed it because no reason was given for it.  And I don't really expect one, considering the user's edit history. Prometheus-X303- 14:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict template 

message: In Advocacy of the Bible. The words are not complete. --SkyWalker 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  An IP editor removed it.  Sometimes vandalism can get lost when multiple cases occur in a short period. Prometheus-X303- 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I think Wikipedia should stop unregistred user from editing. Most of the vandal comes from them. --SkyWalker 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing words