Talk:Bible/Archive 1

message: From the current article:
> It also includes a great deal of the history of the Jews.
Is this NPOV (I mean implicitly claiming the Bible to be history) ?
---
However, should we out of hand completely say that the Bible is not accurate history? I find it discouraging to see that people totally accredit the works of ancient historians, whose writings were almost certainly biased by nationalistic/governmental concerns, but then completely try to discredit the Bible's accounts of historical events, even though the Bible evidences examples of real impartiality in it's reporting on ancient events. I think discrediting the Bible as "completely non-historic" is definitely prejudicial.
----
I agree this does not seem neutral.
This is what I got when I tried to 'neutralize' that paragraph:
Delete:
Contents: The Bible tells how the one God relates to the world and his creations, especially mankind; it also details mankind's relationship and obligations to God. It also includes a great deal of the history of the Jews. Many Christians use the Bible as a source of religious beliefs and doctrines. Most Protestant Christians advocate that it is the incomparably authoritative guide in all matters of faith and practice, a principle called sola scriptura.
Insert:
Synopsis: The Hebrew scripures of the Bible - portions of which contain stories traditionally held to be historical accounts of much of the early history of the Hebrew Nation - teach that there is one God, Jehovah, "Creator of Heaven and Earth" who created Man "in his own image", and details the relationship between Man and his Creator. 
For Christians, the Bible continues, with the advent of Jesus Christ the story begun in the Hebrew scriptures, and is a primary source of religious doctrine and a foundation for their spiritual beliefs.  Some religious sects, notably, several of the 'Protestant' Christian sects, believe the Bible to be the ultimate and authoritative guide in all spiritual matters, by a principle referred to as sola scriptura.
anyone have a problem with this edit?  If so,go right ahead, I may not be back a while, I don't spend much time here, I have other less daunting tasks I'm on, but I applaud you folks for daring to even try to satisfactorily edit such a contoversial area of the wiki.   
I hereby award  you ALL the 'Barnstar of the Mustard Seed':
                                        *
It looked bigger in the catalog... Pedant 09:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  history / neutrality / 

message: "and so Jerome was commissioned to produce the Vulgate translation..."  This seems to me an abuse of the passive voice.  Who commissioned Jerome?  Surely we know.  Yet it is unclear from the text.  –Floorsheim 05:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I think he was commissioned by the current pope of Rome, whoever that was. At the very least, I know the pope advised him to retain at least most of the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate. Wesley 16:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioning of the Vulgate 

message: Why is this text relevant to the introduction of the article?  It is trivia, only important to Jehova's Witnesses, which is why the anon editor entered it. Jayjg 20:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. This is the main introductory section and needs to cover the issues of significance. The exact number of repetitions of the name is not in dispute (I suppose, I haven't counted them) but is this what we need in this place in the article? It looks out of place and without proper context. FrankP 22:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, why do you say this is only important to JW's? This is relevant much of Christianity. (For ex: Do a google search and you'll find many Messianic sites that touch over this issue). It's relevant because most Bible translations subsitute the name with an title such as "LORD".--Josiah 00:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not an article about the usage of the name YHVH, but it is an article about the Bible.  What's the difference if English Bible translations generally translate it as "LORD"?  It gives undue prominence to a minor doctrinal issue only important to a small number of Christians, and it actually belongs in Tetragramaton if anywhere. Jayjg 03:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Jayjg, and the most important character in the Bible, by far, is supposed to be the Creator of the world, i.e. God. In modern times, I would say at *least* 1/3 of bibles translate the name. It isn't a "small" issue anymore. The Catholics, who were pretty much the last to pronounce the name because they used to follow the Rabbinic tradition on this issue, now use the pronunciation of "Yahweh" in their church services. Additionally, this is a hot subject in the academic world. This is an extremely relevant part about the bible.--Josiah 17:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thirded. On the grounds of balance, such a large paragraph would struggle to be justified anywhere in the article, let alone the lead section. — Matt 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I see this is important to you, but it doesn't belong in the opening section, or even in this article.  It might possibly belong in the History of the English Bible article, but even that is questionable.  Currently the feeling on the page is against this insertion, and for good reason; this article is not supposed to be a vehicle for "honoring" people, but rather a description of the Bible. Jayjg 19:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Both. Yes, they are partly my opinion, but they are also carried by religous leaders, scholars, and translators. Scholars such as Anson F. Rainey (Professor of Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University) and others defend a pronunciation of "Yahweh", whereas Emmanuel Tov (Hebrew Univeristy, Head of the DSS project) and others believe that "Yehovah" is more correct. There are, of course, others who think both pronunciations are incorrect, such as Everett Fox (Professor of Judaic and Biblical Studies, Clark University). Many of the proponents of the pronunciation "Yahweh" have relied on records of Samaritan beliefs, and to counter that they (The Samaritans) asked my friend if they could publish an article he wrote in their newsletter, which is now avaliable at . See also the Catholic Encyclopedia --Josiah 16:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these arguments about the name are interesting in a way, but simply not relevant here.  They belong in the Tetragramaton article.  This article is summary of the overall work, and contains no similar information on any other translation issues, much less in the opening paragraph. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I do agree, however, that the paragraph could use some work done on it.--Josiah 16:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The use of the term by various translators, suitably NPOVd might be interesting in an article on English Biblical translations, or in the Tetragramaton article, where this agenda based POV stuff has also been inserted.  However, in an overview of the Bible this POV trivia, currently the single largest paragraph, simply does not belong. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the introduction indicates that the Bible says the name shouldn't be pronounced. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: That makes sense to me. But that whole Tetragramaton paragraph should be moved, ideally out of this article entirely. Jayjg 15:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineffability of name