Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 2

message: Since this WikiProject's #Goals, /General, /Strategy, and /Strategy talk pages have deprecated, I'm archiving them here as a way to start revamping this WikiProject. --J. J. 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I've been sorting through reli-stubs (very depressing thing to do). At the start I tagged a number of New Testament items as , and was surprised to find that I got 'This Hebrew Bible-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it'.
:Now, I've no problems with a seperate Hebrew Bible/OT category, but if we have a 'Hebrew Bible' one, should we have a 'New Testament' - or perhaps an 'early Christianity' one? The 'Christianity' stub category is IMO too broad. Comments? --Doc (?) 15:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible stubs 

message: I have a couple of issues with Wikipedia's Bible coverage that I thought I would bring up here.  Firstly: Easton's Bible Dictionary is a monstrosity.  It is simply not appropriate to base wikipedia articles on Easton's Bible Dictionary.  Perhaps this should be stated somewhere.  Some sort of list of articles based on that book would also be helpful in terms of knowing articles that are almost sure to need serious revision.  The worst are articles on non-Biblical subjects, like Babylonian kings and so forth.  It is simply embarrassing that, say, our article on Amel-Marduk originally said that he released Jehoiachin because of Daniel's advice.
Secondly, and perhaps tangentially relatedly, it seems to me that there need to be some sort of guidelines as to what weight to give secular scholarship vs. traditional interpretations vs. modern apologetics.  For a specific dispute over this, see my argument with Kuratowski's Ghost at Talk:Book of Esther.  It seems to me that articles on primarily Biblical subjects ought to give the traditional view first.  Scholarly views should follow.  Apologetics (by which I mean - the arguments of the faithful in defending the traditional views against the supposed assaults of modern scholarship) should either be avoided, or marked clearly as such when they are significant enough to warrant mention.  For articles on primarily non-Biblical subjects (e.g. Kings of Assyria or Babylon or Persia mentioned in the Bible, and the like), modern scholarly views ought to take precedence, with traditional views relegated to some short section towards the end somewhere.  Apologetics ought not appear in these articles at all.  So, the Book of Esther, to take the example I've been arguing about of late, article should discuss first that traditionally it is seen as a historical account of events in the reign of Xerxes I.  We should then say that modern scholarship generally does not believe the story in Esther to be historical, both because of the generic markers within the work itself and because of the impossibility of corroborating any of it with what is known of the history of the Persian period.  Apologetics - attempts to demonstrate, contra modern scholars, that the story really is historical - should be discussed only briefly, if at all.  The Xerxes I article should mention nothing about the Esther story save a brief reference towards the end that Xerxes is traditionally identified with the King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, but that historians have doubts as to the historical veracity of that book.  Does anybody have any thoughts on this, though? john k 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Greetings. In response to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uel, I've started a List of minor Biblical figures. Would anyone here be interested in helping to fill it out? It should contain information on persons mentioned in the Bible, but lacking enough information to justify an individual article. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints for others who may be interested in helping out with this. --J. J. 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of minor Biblical figures]] 

message: I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, but specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiery Furnace 

message: would you like to create certified articles about the bible? -- Zondor 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang]] 

message: There are a number of Bible article centralised discussion which have been initiated by User:-Ril- (many repeats of ond wars). Anyone interested in this project might like to contribute. They are at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20 Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. --Doc ask? 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Article discussons 

message: Please take a look at this discussion and weigh in with your opinion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Category_talk:Midian#Vote]] 

message: I didn`t know there was a project on the Bible. I was looking for a portal and there wasn`t one. So I followed the instructions and built one. I hope it can be utilized in your project. Donnie Love 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Bible]] 

message: Is actually very thin.  I've been working on Matthew 1:9 which has been very interesting, but really there should be at least an article on each chapter in Matthew, and on each pericope.  There is the material available. Can we perhaps start a bible collaberation of the week to fill some of these gaps - the missing chapters in Matthew would be a good start. Rich   Farmbrough 16:03 19  March 2006 (UTC).
Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to fill out the articles at List of New Testament stories and List of Hebrew Bible stories (and some parts of the apocrypha have extra narratives as well)? I've only ever seen religiously motivated people write things about chapters as a whole lump, and never an encyclopedia? Clinkophonist 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible coverage

message: In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:
*SimonP and the King James Version
And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:
*200 verses of Matthew
*Verses of John 20
*Whole bible chapter text
Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles
*Matthew 1, Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
*Matthew 2, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, 
*Matthew 3, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
*Matthew 4, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
*Matthew 5, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
*Matthew 6, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34
*Matthew 7, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2, Matthew 7:3, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:5, Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:8, Matthew 7:9, Matthew 7:10, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14, Matthew 7:15
*John 20, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18
And any other such articles that may currently exist
I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles 
*Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
*Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)
For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)
--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The validity of the general consensus is actually highly disputed. Please only merge verses if that is a better way of organising existing content in an individual case. --Doc ask? 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt look terribly disputed to me, the only objectors seem to be those obsessed with the bible. Clinkophonist 12:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the 'only objectors' are just about everyone working on Bible articles. Merge if you like, but do not lose any content for ideological 'anti-Bible' reasons. --Doc ask? 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help merge articles 

message: I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christianity Knowledge Base is the site. 
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. This would go far beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for example, there is a limit to how honorably and magnificently the Lord can be represented at WP.
Christianity Knowledge Base is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible Wiki is actively trying not to be "CPOV", but instead "NPOV", or, more accurately, "NOR". Unfortunately most of the material we are using to seed the articles doesn't really meet the standards we want to achieve, so there's still a long way to go. --Salvadors 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would love your help. 

message: Does anyone have much familiarity with the Old Testament Apocrypha?
The articles for it are a bit stubby, and the Book of Enoch article, one of the few that isn't just a stub, could do with a lot of tidying up in the "content" section.
:Category:Old Testament Apocrypha has a list of articles, but many aren't more than a few sentences, and there are quite a few articles missing.
Ideally there should be something like a summary like New Testament apocrypha only Old Testament apocrypha. I can make a start on that if noone else does (but Id prefer to flesh out the OT apocrypha articles). Clinkophonist 12:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Testament Apocrypha 

message: I noticed on the Odes disambiguation page that there were two different books called Odes. I was curious if these two books were actually the same book. So after googling for a bit, I found the full text of Odes of Solomon . All I could find for the Boof of Odes was this . The former has 42 odes, the latter 14. The former is 1-2nd century CE, while the latter is found in the LXX. All this information seems to suggest that they are two different books (though I cannot explain why I cannot find the full text online for the latter). All that said, it seems like the Odes of Solomon article confuses the two different books. Most of the information seems to be about the Book of Odes (such as the references to Moses, the PRayer of Manasseh, the Gloria in Excelsis, which are not included in the online translation of Odes of Solomon). I have no idea what is going on, so I was wondering if anybody knew more about this. --Andrew c 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Odes of Solomon]] vs. [[Book of Odes (Bible)|Book of Odes]] 

message: I've just created Black Bible Chronicles, but I hesitate to add it to the list of Miscellaneous Bible translations and/or Modern English Bible translations#Highly dynamic translations since it's not a complete translation. How should we accomodate for loose or incomplete translations such as this one? A similar example would be something like children's Bibles with partial translations. --J. J. 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Black Bible is the perfect candidate for the miscilaneous translations list. :) --DjSamwise 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include incomplete versions? 

message: I've been looking through some of the bigger WikiProjects and have learned a few things. This project quickly splintered into several pages; while we've had members added to the group, it's not clear what we should do when we join.
I've started by archiving the old /General and /Strategy pages which were only really used the first couple of months that the project was created (2004). I've also moved the majority of the Goals discussion from the main page to this same archive. At the same time, I revised the goals to be up to date with current practices. I've also created a simple banner for talk pages.
I hope this is a good start for reorganizing the project. There are several other ways to improve the project page, as well as parts of the project itself, so I've started with a few suggestions in the new Tasks section.
:Thanks for the reorganisation. Please don't use a banner though - these things are just clutter and I personally hate them. --Doc ask? 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! Banner's aren't that big, and I think they're quite helpful to help publicize the project. Anyone else hate banners? --J. J. 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that new members don't know how to contribute, being a new member who hasn't contributed at all! Perhaps a todo list or "places to help" page would help. --Ephilei 07:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing this project 

message: I've been conceptualizing a Scripture Database website for several years now. I've finally gotten around to publishing a rough draft of the site online. It is wiki-based and would make a good compliment to Wikipedia scripture pages. Please use my dedicated talk page to discuss. --J. J. 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help develop Scripture Database website 

message: Are there standard abbreviations of the Bible, or just commonly known ones? The Douai Bible is probably one of the hardest to nail down since it has so many variants to its name. D-R seems to be the most commonly used. If there isn't a Template:Bible translation infobox (which includes an abbr. field) on the Bible's article, I think it would make sense to start adding the abbreviation to introductory paragraphs. --J. J. 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an extension (and partial answer) to this question, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Latest in biblical terminology. --J. J. 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible abbreviations 

message: You might be interested in:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Bible
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Gospel of Matthew
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Esdras
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Esdras
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Maccabees
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Maccabees
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Tobit
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Judith
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Wisdom
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Ecclesiasticus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Baruch
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Story of Susanna
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Bel and the Dragon
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Second Chronicles
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Ezra
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in First Kings
Clinkophonist 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  36000 non existing articles 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Perhaps we should start considering a collaboration of the week?
:I nominate 1 Corinthians 13.Or, just merge it with agape. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the week? 

message: You can now add the selected Bible chapter from Portal:Bible to your user page using .  Enjoy! BigDT 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> 

message: In the article, Biblical literalism invented terms are being passed as established doctrine with no basis in scholarly refference (or any refference really). This article is being used as prooftext for other articles so it's kinda screwing up discussions on what really are differing doctrines.. I could use a little help from seasoned wikipedians who have some sweet skills. Thanks. Peace. --DjSamwise 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians, Seminarians and Theologians please help

message: Hi, the article The Bible needs alot of help to bring it up to par to be considered a good or featured article. Please consider joining the discussion to help figure out what to do with this important article. --Home Computer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Bible]] needs help

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Hi everyone. I've taken the Revised Standard Version to Featured article review, which means it may lose Featured status if it is not brought up to standard. It can be found here. There's a lot of work to be done on it, but I'm hoping there will be interested editors. Marskell 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of the article in the beginning. I'll take a look at it when I can. My WikiPlate is full now. Hoshie 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Standard Version 

message: I have become involved in a dispute with a new editor on the article Mercy seat, which was the lid of the Ark of the Covenant in Solomon's Temple. It played an important role in Yom Kippur sacrifices in the Temple, and as a metaphor in Christian theology. I would appreciate input from editors experienced in writing about Biblical matters. FreplySpang 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mercy seat]] 

message: Hi folks. I just stumbled onto John 1:1, which seems to need some real help, and perhaps deletion. I'm not really one to do it, but maybe you folks are? I don't know what you all have decided in the way of stylistic standards, but I hope something can be done to improve this article.
It was created about a month ago by someone who seems to have a strong JW focus (it's not terribly POV, but it's fixated on the debate about the JW "the Word was a god" interpretation). This one editor (a new one I assume- still a red name) remains the major substantial contributor to the article. Maybe it should just be deleted? I'm not sure. It's not exactly OR, I don't think, and probably is at least slightly notable... It was prodded once, but that was removed without much discussion. Thanks- Staecker 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup (or worse) needed 

message: The article Book of Ezekiel needs some help. There are some OR-ish sections that somebody else named e.g. as "Unsourced commentary apparently by Wikipedians". I don't know what the standard approach to these book-of-the-Bible articles is, but it needs some reworking to fit or outright pruning. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Ezekiel