Talk:Bibliomancy

message: I disagree that the two pages should be merged.
Randomly selecting a passage of the Bible is not Occult related. The Bible and the Occult are opposing subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.150.224.3 (talk • contribs) .
:Actually, they are not opposing subjects at all.  The Bible has several mentions of occult subjects, and basic Christianity involves some forms of occult belief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.60.215.102 (talk • contribs) .
:I disagree on the "should not be merged" as well.  By my understanding, bibliomancy is divination involving any book.  That the Bible is frequently used is important enough that it should be mentioned, but it is not required for something to be defined as bibliomancy. g026r 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why they shouldn't be merged. As long as it has it's own heading near the top. It seems as if it is a form of bibliomancy.User:bolesjohnb
I agree they should be merged. If we have an article for every single book that has ever been used for Bibliomancy we'll soon run out of internet to put them all in ;)
This article should be a sub-topic in bibliomancy
Lostsocks 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. Where there is a separate interest, there can be an article hanging off bibliomancy. Charles Matthews 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

message: The term "Mohammedan" in the quote in the first paragraph is outdated and should be replaced with "Muslim," but this would change the status of the paragraph as a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia. That resource is public domain (and quite old) so citing it directly might not be necessary here. Alternatively, we could simply remove or rewrite the quote entirely. Suggestions? --babbage 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't misrepresent a quotation. Remove, paraphrase, use links, explain, use [...], but if the original is in English do not change the original words. --Error 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing quote from another source 

message: Trivia section contains one note about an obscure role-playing game.  Off with its head!  is there a formal process for adding pages to the list that need to have trivia integrated or scrubbed?  my trigger finger is getting itchy....
R0m23 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested removal of trivia section 

message: I can find no reference to "nahash" or "onan", besides as names of biblical characters, anywhere. --71.113.30.115 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  missinformation 

message: If so, I Ching doesn't really belong here.
Arqueware (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a substantive difference between using a book as the object of divination, versus using a tool to divine and consulting a book to grok the result? 

message: Moving this text from the article to the Talk page because it is unsourced, lacking in context, and not obviously about the subject of the article:
In Judaism, according to the Shulchan Aruch (Rema, Yoreh Deah, 179), it is not the sin of necromancy to divine an answer by asking a child for the first piece of scripture that comes to his mind.
MartinPoulter (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section