Talk:Tiras

message: Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.84.129 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please add a citation for Josephus here? 

message: The IP editor 172... insists that the article explicitely states that Tiras is "unmentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible".
I object (1) mainly because by stating that he is mentioned in Genesis (ch. 10) and 1 Chronicles (ch. 1, which merely recaptures the genealogies from Genesis) we already imply that he is not mentioned anywhere else. Otherwise we would also mention these other verses. (2) Furthermore, since Tiras is only a name in a genealogical list and not important in any way to anything reported in the Bible. Let's face it: the Bible is about Abraham and his descendants, mainly the people of Israel, and not about any distant relatives. (3) The wording "in the Hebrew Bible" preferred by the 172... also implies that he is only "unmentioned" in the Hebrew Bible and not in other version of the Bible (translations like the Septuagint or more expansive versions like the one encompassing Old and New Testament).
Str1977 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: May you please put your money where your mouth is and provide VERSES for the ALL the names I indicated - if you can't even do it for five names, your contention that "All the other grandsons are mentioned elsewhere" seems to be hot air. Str1977 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Not that it matters much but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Str1977 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

text: You made an assertion and are unwilling to back it up. I have no problem with this but don't expect me to take your claims seriously then. Str1977 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as little bearing on the article as your cherished sentence that "Tiras is unmentioned (sic!) elsewhere". Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible

message: I've reorganized the whole article, because it had ancient and modern sources indiscriminately mixed together. As it stands now, the opening paragraph contains a summary of modern scholarly views, followed by two paragraphs on views in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After that, all of the ancient and medieval sources are now presented in chronological order. There's still work to be done, though, especially in finding sources for all the claims in the article.Alephb (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganized, More Work Needed

message: There are no such people as the Turcsha, despite the citation to Waltke in the lead. What we're dealing with here is a typo. In all of the JSTOR database, there is no mention of "Turcsha," and on Google Books there are only two mentions. The first is the Commentary by Waltke, while the second is in a note from a Study Bible, published two years after Waltke, which appears to be lifting a bit of Waltke's wording.
Among all the actual literature on the Sea Peoples, no Turcsha. What you will find is a group called Teresh or Tursha, occasionally spelled Turisha in older works. Teresh and Tursha appear over and over, in tons of works mentioning the Sea Peoples. It also makes sense that Turcsha would be a typo — Teresh and Tursha both sound a good deal closer to Tiras than Turcsha does.
Therefore, we should remove the citation to Waltke, so as not to lead our readers down a rabbit-trail to nowhere. Alephb (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turcsha