Talk:Bible/Archive 6

message: Could someone remove the tag? This looks like one of the clearer summary paragraphs that one is likely to find on a controversial subject. Jonathan Tweet 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  documentary hypothesis is cleaned up 

message: Could this section be added? As proof for this I quote Ezekiel 45:9 "Enough, O princes of Israel. Put away violence and oppression and execute justice and righteousness. Cease your evictions of my people, says the Lord God." another: Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be the children of God" Thanks! Shalom!Biblical follower 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bible does promote peace. It has little bit of violence because people provoked Lord to anger. Mainly it promotes peace and happiness. If you are talking about Crusades. It was ordered by popes not by true christian. Jesus Christ says that True Christians are harmless like doves. I hope that clear it for you Mrg3105. --SkyWalker 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does one provoke an OMNIPOTENT being to anger to the point where he physically takes out that anger on beings which are less than ants are underfoot to human? Surely a "good, peaceloving" being should be able to rise above that? After all, "to forgive is divine". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.130.128.2 (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be obvious that the Bible promotes peace... the only people who hold faith to otherwise are atheists, funnily enough.
Yoda921 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes the Bible promotes peace; sometimes it does not.  Whether the thrust of the whole is to promote peace is entirely up to the judgment of the reader, and cannot be proclaimed as an objective fact, one way or another. Carlo 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible promotes peace 

message: The Bible is probably the most influential book ever written, you would be hard pressed to find any piece of Western literature that didn't have any references to the Bible. So why does this article have a section informing us that Family Guy once made a reference to John 3:16? Anyone else think this section should be removed? GhostPirate 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally don't touch the Trivia section. I acknowledge that Wikipedia serves people who find Family Guy much more relevant to their lives than Dante or Milton. But perhaps there could be (or maybe there already is) an article on the Bible's influence on general literature and culture to which this sort of material could go, hopefully an article in which Dante and Milton are also mentioned. --Shirahadasha 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dare I point out that Wikipedia has an article, often an extensive one, on every single Family Guy episode and character that ever was? Do you think Wikipedia is anywhere even close to having an article on every episode and character that appears in the Bible? If you compare the amount of coverage between the two, we should probably feel grateful that the Family Guy editors see fit to mention us. Best, --Shirahadasha 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL Robert A.West (Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Iam thinking the same. I dont know why the trivia is there. I dont see any relation with trivia and the article. For me it looks like mocking at bible. Better to delete them. --SkyWalker 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Trivia" section

message: Why are there two articles of basically the same name and title? --208.127.64.127 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are about two different subjects. -- Cat Whisperer 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Both titles seem to be constrained. Biblical Criticism has a distinct meaning in academic circles, and Wikipedia uses "Criticism of X" in a variety of articles, so both articles have the titles that people who want to look the subjects up would use. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Shirahadasha. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Criticism Or Criticism of the Bible 

message: Here is a story by two people that are influenced greatfully by the Bible and have cared to write on CNN.com.
By Jay Bakker and Marc Brown
(CNN)   What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.
While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.
So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.
His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.
This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not. 
Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.
The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." 
Please consider what they have written. Shalom Biblical follower 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fundamentalist Conscience 

message: The noted Hebrew bible(in the Christian bible section) should be cited as Rabbinic Judaism 's Bible, the decedents of the Pharisees.  The Essene Jews- probably those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, used a bible similar to the Septuagint, but with several more books and lacking others, the Sadducees held strictly to Sadducees Pentateuch (the 1st five books of the Bible) and  Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel(even today) and many other Jews held to the Septuagint version as their "Hebrew" canon.
I,also noticed an evident Reformationist bias, in breaking the Christian bible into two separate books.  For orthodox Christianity ( Catholic Church Western/Latin{Roman}Catholic/Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Christianity , and  Oriental Orthodox Christianity) all believe the Christian Bible begins with the Old Testament even thought it was chronologically first provided to Hebrews. 
Additionally, the author begins his discussion on the New Testament stating "The Bible as used by the majority of Christians includes the Hebrew(Pharisaic)Scripture and the New Testament."-separating the two sections of the bible-.  A hideously presumptuous and flat out erroneous statement considering orthodox Christians, noted above, outnumber these Reformationalist nearly 3 to 1 worldwide (see List of Christian denominations by number of members )--Micael 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rabbinic Judaism and its successors are (with the exception of a tiny Karaite Judaism, which also accepts the Masoretic Text) the only contemporary living branch of Judaism. Only the Masoretic Text is regarded as canonical (and hence as "Bible") by any contemporary branch of Judaism. Wikipedia religion articles on living religions are written for a contemporary audience and focus on the contemporary meanings of terms. Also, the article's division between the "Hebrew Bible" and a Christian "Old Testament" was considered necessary to permit distinguishing Jewish from Christian POVs. Please accept this compromise and put Christian POVs in the appropriate section, not the "Hebrew Bible" section. Also, Wikipedia policies call for maintaining a civil tone and respectful behavior towards others. This is essential to our ability to function. Wikipedia article content is written by volunteers. You are welcome to disagree or add input, but please do so respectfully. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not an expert on this subject, and I express no opinion on the question of whether the majority of Christians regard the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text as canonical. Could you identify some sources on this issue? The Masoretic text article currently says that Roman Catholics now use this text rather than the Septuagint. Do you have sources that this is incorrect? Suggest using the term Masoretic text rather than "Rabbinic Hebrew Bible" if this is what is meant. Traditional Jews of course believe that this is essentially the same Hebrew text as was used in earlier times, but not everyone shares this view. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 06:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've replied on your talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When asking whether someone uses an ancient text of the Bible, the issue is whether we are talking about them using the manuscripts or using the canon. If the issue is manuscript, then yes, to my knowledge, everyone uses the masoretic texts - they are much more reliable than those of the LXX or the Vulg.  If we are talking about the canon, that is a different issue; in that case, it would be fair to say that most Christians primarily rely on the Masoretic canon, with many Christians ascribing secondary authority to the expanded (or broader) canon of the LXX.  (Thus the term deutero-canonical -- even those who rely on the LXX canon admit that it is a secondary canon).  But to say that either canon is not ultimately derived from the Hebrew Bible is misleading at best - a fallacy at worst.  Pastordavid 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Errors or bad citations  

message: Please correct the statement under "Old Testament" where it mentions these obvious chronological errors and associated suggestions - 
"The Septuagint (Greek translation, from Alexandria in Egypt under the Ptolemies) was generally abandoned in favor of the Masoretic text(~10th century CE)as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages from Saint Jerome's(347-420 CE)Vulgate to the present day. "  -I have added the dates in parentheses to note these errors.
First there is no evidence of Christians abiding to a Hebrew (Pharisaic) Old Testament prior to Martin Luther and Reformation. Even the statements regarding Jerome skew the truth.
St. Jerome, early, while translating the Hebrew Scriptures(was heavily influence by Rabbinic Judaism- residing his last 32 years in Bethlehem, Palestine), questioned the deuterocanonicals inspiration and thus their application to doctrine and authority. However, he eventually, changed his position, and included them in the Vulgate though he did not translate the majority of the deuterocanonical books. Additionally, in practice Jerome, actually did utilized deuterocanon as inspired and authoritative as he writes in his book -Against the Pelagians: Dialogue Between Atticus, a Catholic, and Critobulus , a Heretic- (though he erroneously states the following quote is from the Book of Wisdom, it actually is from the Book of Sirach, both of which are Deuterocanonical books)...
"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE...(he begins  quoting from Numbers 35:8, Ezekiel 18:23, and proceeds ) ... A. Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The Book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish question:   ‘Look not into things above thee, and search not things too mighty for thee.’(Sir 3:21) And elsewhere,    ‘Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting.’ And in the same place, ‘In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.’ You will perhaps deny the authority of this book....”(from Against the Pelagians: Dialogue Between Atticus, a CATHOLIC, and Critobulus , a Heretic [Book I]NPNF2, VI:464-5; see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.I_1.html - last paragraphs.)--Micael 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd Chronological suggestions and comments on Jerome

message: I wanted to say a little bit more, but take into a seperate discussion so that the other does not get too weighed down.
# It is undeniable that the early Christians fully accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as they were defined by contemporary Jews.
# When the canons of Hebrew Scripture were narrowed to not include some of the texts that originated in the Greek language, Christians also quickly began to ascribe less authority to them.  (thus, the term deutero-canonical is normative among those who accept the authority of those writings)
# The issue, for me, with trying to seperate the Christian OT from the Hebrew Scriptures is that it paves the way and leaves the door open for (a) the worst sorts of supercessionist theology, and (b) the gnostic-marcionite heresy of denying our roots and indebtedness to Israel and her God.  Pastordavid 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is something that has been discussed a little bit before.  The problem is, the Christian Old Testament is not the same as the Hebrew Bible as far as content goes (1), and also as far as its essential quality (2).  To explain, on (1), the canon used by the majority of Christians includes extra texts not found in the Hebrew text.  There is absolutely no lesser status given to the LXX books, at least in Catholicism.  They are scripture, same as the reset.  I believe that even those groups that reject the LXX books still employ a different organization and division of books than Jews do.  Concerning (2), the Christian Old Testament is not intended to stand alone.  Its meaning is understood in relation to the New Testament, especially in relation to Christ / Christological doctrines (and neither is the New Testament to stand alone).  However, the "Hebrew Bible", insofar as Jews employ it, stands alone quite well for them, and is obviously understood quite differently because.  So when we say "Bible" we mean the whole of Scripture; in the Jewish context that is the Hebrew Bible, in the Christian context it is not the Hebrew Bible, but the Old and New Testaments which equal the Christian Bible. Lostcaesar 11:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lostceaser and would add that it is simply not the place for Wikipedia articles to "decide" debates among Christian theologians, nor are Wikipedia articles to be edited on the basis of Christian theology.  We have core policies, like NOR and NPOV, and they alone should guide us.  Jews and Christians mean different things when they use the word "Bible."  That is a fact whether it aligns with one's theology or not.  I have no doubts that Christian theologians are quite capable of accounting for this fact without compromising on their theology.  But this article is not the place to do it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on the "Hebrew Bible" Issue 

message: I am not disputing that the following is true.  However, I do think the sentence is unclear in that it does not follow.  Maybe if it said "could not be the authors of the complete Torah".
:"Benedict Spinoza concluded from a study of such contradictions that the Torah could not have had a single author, and thus, neither God nor Moses could be the authors of the Torah."
StudyAndBeWise 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People often say things that other people think don't follow, especially in religion. We need sources for what Spinoza said. What he said is what matters. It doesn't matter if we think he should instead have said something clearer or which "follows". If you dispute that Spinoza said this -- and I'm no Spinoza expert -- sources contradicting it would be appraciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just change the "thus" to a "moreover."  The source is his Theological Political Tractate. I cannot provide a page number though.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not follow