Talk:Boaz

message: I have deleted the Boaz in Zionism section. This story has no references anywhere. I have never heard of it. I have googled all the relevant words in Hebrew and nothing comes up. If it's true at all, it was a minuscule episode not deserving an entry. In any case, it has no place in an entry about a biblical character. Hans Mayer 05:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is October 2014 and the Boaz and Zionism section is back, still uncited after 7 years. This is kinda ridiculous, in my opinion. 70.36.137.221 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: In Zionism

message: I deleted the Aussie pronunciation, "baʊæz". It didn't match the article it was linked to, and I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a distinct pronunciation, or just the Aussie pronunciation. kwami (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: The article is more critical than ever before, although it needs more attention on the way the references to 'rabbinical' literature are presented. --Algorithme (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{smallcaps|b}} Class

message: The article does not have extensive headlines or titles which make a floating  inconvenient. My intention with a floating one is occupying less room, for practical and aesthetic reasons. I have an , and it is very uncomfortable for me having to overuse my limbs to read long articles (and I like long ones). --Algorithme (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came to know that the issue is being discussed elsewhere. --Algorithme (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Floating Table of Contents

message: I know most of the paragraph is a direct quotation from the source, but the abbreviations and foreign characters make it nearly impossible to understand.  Can anyone do a clean up or pull from another source to make this section more clear?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.167.246 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If one puts their cursor onto the abbreviations, the respective passages will appear at full length. By the same method, one gets transcription or explanation of most of the parts in Hebrew. I agree that the terms in Greek need explanation. The source, nevertheless, is one of the best one could find for the matter of criticism on the subject. Generally books on Biblical Criticism presume that readers have the linguistic prerequisites to understand them. --Algorithme (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The excellent source lexicon provides a table of abbreviations, and is intended for scholars; but Wikipedia is not a book of Biblical Criticism, but an encyclopedia, which needs to be intelligible to laymen. There is not even any indication of the cursor methodology. I propose to expand the abbreviations.Jezza (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although "Wikipedia is not a book of Biblical Criticism", an encyclopedia is a place that laymen can use to become scholars. Quotation marks should be respected. The abbreviations for manuscripts that  utilizes are used by several related books (e.g., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia). Algorithme (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "In The Temple" Confusion

message: The New Testament names Boaz as the son of "Rachab", not the son of "Raab" (Rahab). The New Testament and Septuagint only use the form "Raab" to name the Biblical figure Rahab who assists the Israelite spies at Jericho. Since it is only in the New Testament that the mother of Boaz is ever referred to, and she is named as "Rachab" and not "Raab", this cannot be taken to mean the same person, who in any case would have been separated by several generations.     
JD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachab not Raab (Rahab) 

message: The article states: Boaz married Ruth and, consequently, preserved the name of Elimelech, Naomi's deceased husband, a sort of levirate. 
How is Naomi's unnamed deceased husband sort of a levirate? Sort of (a levirate) are weasel words. Can anyone clear this up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.198.171 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort of a levirate?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929103223/http://www.ronaldecker.com/andr.htm to http://www.ronaldecker.com/andr.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In checking the lexicon in link 3, there is no attestation to an arabic root of b-gh-z. This is likely an original research and/or a typo, since it should be 'ayn as the the middle consonant (not ghayn). The source on the bottom right of page 126 says "quickness?" and does not refer to a horse. 
I think someone may have been confused about their animals: vis./ref. 'iz (hebrew) or ma'uz (arabic), both of which mean goat. That's my guess.
Anyway, etymologically, bo'az clearly has more to do with strength/goatness, because the semitic root in both languages refers to strength/reinforcement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrightsversusyours (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: As of 2023 oct 21, the paragraph "The Temple" reads: --"Its meaning is a subject of controversy.[15]-- but Footnote 15 is UNINTELLIGIBLE. 184.96.243.163 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 15