Talk:Bible/Archive 8

message: There is an error in the first section. It claims that the there are 46 books in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. This is incorrect. There are 39 books in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. There are 46 books in the Catholic Bible. This deeply concerns me that I am unable to edit and correct this perversion of God's Word!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus'smessenger (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in that it should be Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One, rather than Coptic canon of Eighty one.  However, that list of numbers refers only to the number in the Tanakh/Old Testament, not the complete Bible used by the religious organization. jonathon 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur that this article needs to be split. The Christian and Jewish bibles are not sufficiently similar to allow for one entry. Translations and interpretations among believers of Christianity and Judaism are completely different. The generic "Bible" page should be a disambiguation page. Otherwise people reading the article to learn about the Christian or Jewish Bibles will need to wade through a large amount of irrelevant material. User:Luqmanskye  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Torah is a subset of the Tanakh which is a subset of the Protestant Christian Canon,which is a subset of the Roman Catholic Canon, which is a subset of the Anglican Canon, which is a subset of the Orthodox Christian Canon, which is a subset of the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (narrower canon), which is a subset of the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (broader canon).  Alternatively, the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospels are a subset of the sacred scripture of Islam, and Christianity. jonathon 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the different groups have different understandings of what the books mean.  Samaritans, for example, consider the Nviim and Ktuvim to be "Man's Word",and thus not Holy Writ.  Both Kariate or Rabbinical Judaism consider the Nviim and Ktuvim to be Holy Writ.   Their understanding of the Tanakh is radically different.   Even orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, despite coming from Rabbinical Judaism clash on nearly every significant point of theology.   Wandering into Protestant Christianity, you're hard pressed to recognize the theology of Metropolitan Community Church, and Church of Christ as being derived from the same textual source.jonathon 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: I vote that information containing the text should be marked with "here be spoilers"
*Yes, especially for those who plan to watch the movie version. Wahkeenah 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Book has a happy ending. For some. Did you get to the part about where Noah kept the bees? Wahkeenah 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler: In the ark-hive. Wahkeenah 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: The Torah section is awfully large for having it's own article. Maybe it should be shortened? --Vlmastra 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Torah and the Hebrew Bible are not the same.  In principle, I would think that it would be fair if half the article was about the Jewish Bible and half about the Christian Bible.  In fact, the Jewish Bible occupies less than half the article.  So i do not see why anyone could say it is "awfully large" unless you think it is awful that Judaism is treated as equal in merit to Christianity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah Section 

message: Manuscript 15th century, "Binding in wood, back sewn in the Chinese style"
third treasure National Library of Turkey 
Nice to include in the article?
Fleurstigter 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible (Abyssinian)

message: Can people who know much of the history of the canonization of the Gospels comment here?  Thanks Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  query 

message: I propose removing the Bible Societies section under external links.  All of the entries under this section are spam links, and I can't see how any non-spam links could be added given the nature of the section.  Fcsuper 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing there at all that qualifies as spam. These are all legitimate societies. Dovi 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say none of the sites where legit, but practically every single one was promoting a particular faith (either expressed or implied) and where not general bibilical groups.  The whole catagory is naturally spam for every little group that wants their name linked on some official site to raise their profile.  Also, I did leave this request for input up a few days. Fcsuper 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bible societies are an important discussion regarding the bible; they have been instrumental in the promotion and distribution of bibles, and have also been at the forefront of translation efforts. Should we have a Bible Society page? peterl 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, good comment. There is already a bible society wiki article.  I've added the link to Bible analysis section in the same format as other wiki article links. Fcsuper 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thank you peterl 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a link to the Bible society article. Links to specific bible societies can go there, unless someone would prefer to compile a List of Bible societies article. --Shirahadasha 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hang about!  I think the heading "Bible Societies" should now be changed to something more general. It looks a bit un-professional to have a heading "Bible Societies" followed by a single bullet point "Bible Society".  I would have changed it without this comment but just can't think of a more general heading at the moment.  If anybody has an idea - please do change it. WikiJonathanpeter 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've made an alteration.  I've changed the bullet point to say... "See Bible Society for a list".  Looks much better now. WikiJonathanpeter 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I would prefer just listing it under one of the other categories, but this is fine. Fcsuper 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Yes, I do agree but we have the problem that it doesn't fit into one of the other catagories.  Anyway - we can archive topic now everybody is happy :o).  WikiJonathanpeter 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Societies 

message: The links under "Bible Texts" are untidy.  I'm not sure about the last link addition.  Since I'm not an expect in this area and can't read websites in other languages other than English, please could somebody else take a look and sort it out.  WikiJonathanpeter 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Texts 

message: I have moved all the links to Biblical exegesis where there is already a list of links to Biblical commentaries WikiJonathanpeter 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I deleted some of the poorer links in the process. WikiJonathanpeter 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible commentaries

message: I added http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ to external links, but it was removed. It provides substantial commentary and relevant content, and meets the external links criteria. While it's probably not from a neutral point of view, most of the current links are purely from the Cristian point of view; so this website provides some balance.
That said, there are a lot of other links which should be removed, either because they only duplicate content at wikisource, because they are merely linkfarms or because they are richmedia. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why the link was removed.  I also understand your criticisms of many of the other links.  I don't think www.skepticsannotatedbible.com should be on the bible article.  It's a POV link in this context.  I do feel it is a valuable link, and is better served by being including on a new Bible Controversies article instead.  (I'm actually surprized I couldn't find a Wikipedia article with the topic of Bible Controversy.)  Thoughts?  Fcsuper 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  I have heard good arguments against many of the stated contradictions, thus the link would actually unbalance the article from that view point.  It would be wrong to supply a list of contradictions without providing the counter arguments.  As Fcsuper says, it would be much better to have a separate topic giving a balanced discussion in the area (if discussion is the right word).  The links as you say do need reviewing.  I guess this hasn't been done because of the time it will take to go through them all in order to do a thorough job.  This is something I'll spend next Wednesday doing as I have the day off and have nothing better to do! WikiJonathanpeter 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link has just been added to another article to do with Christianity.  I am removing it of the page for now before more people see it and add it to more pages. WikiJonathanpeter 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is been added this many pages. The link should not be added here.--SkyWalker 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The MoS explicitly states "Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia." Does anyone actually disagree with that it is obvious bias to apply this to the Qur'an, but not to the Bible? --Servant Saber 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bible means "book" and "holy" is used to distinguish it from other books.  Quran means "recitation" and I think the way Muslims distinguish it from other recitations is as "noble."  If I am right I would have no objection to regularly identifying the Quran, when speaking specifically of the one Muslim's consider noble, as the Noble Quran. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, in context I do not think the article is calling the Bible "the Holy" Bible - it is saying Christians call it the Holy Bible, which is accurate and complies with NPOV (as it would to say that Muslim's refer to the Quran as the Noble Quran or - if they do - the Holy Quran).Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holy Bible" vs. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Quran]] 

message: I removed this, because (1) it is not NPOV, as people argue over whether or not it is myth, history, literature, allegory, etc.; (2) much of what it discusses is Iron Age, not Bronze Age; (3) Bronze and Iron age are kind of anachronistic ways of dating periods anyway, I do not think most Biblical scholars rely on these terms anymore (4) even those who agree that the Bible includes Bronze Age Myths identifies their origins in Egyptian mythology and SUmerian mythology, both of which fall outside of the Levant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The stuff about bronze age/levantine myths was vandalism.  See history of edits.  WikiJonathanpeter 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze age Levantine myths 

message: Is there an established precedent for whether to disambiguate a title as (bible) versus (biblical)? There seems to be dual usage, as well as others like (ancient city) etc. Do let me know, TewfikTalk 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab 

message: - Recent edits changed AD & BC reference to BCE and CE. To me this edit seemed unnecessary and petty at best. I was wondering if that is Wiki protocol or not? XParadigm777x 06:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "the Bible" addresses both the sacred literature of Christians and Jews, I think we should use both as a compromise, or use BCE/CE when talking about the Jewish bible and BC/AD when talking about the Christian Bible.  Our Style Guidelines allow both forms. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Thank you. XParadigm777x 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Secularized Dates Necessary for Entry? 

message: Just as a grammatical point, should the word "biblical" be capitalized or not?  It seems like the word is randomly caps or not throughout this entry.
KevClark64 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically speaking, no it should not.  "Biblical" is an adjective, not a noun, and should not be capitalized.  I'll take a pass through the article and see if I can get it uniform.  -Pastordavid 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization question 

message: I was having a disscusion with one of my wifes and Im sure the bible does not say its against poligamy. The bible has plenty of references where god tells somone to marry extra wifes, another wife when already married. Does any one have any quotes? Please do not quote two joined as one (Sure thats being one together, but it doesnt exclude being one with another wife). Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).
:I'm not sure whether this is really relevant to the article under discussion, but have you looked at the Polygamy article?  It has quite a bit of discussion about how views on polygamy have changed within various religions.  I don't know whether you are interested in Christianity, Islam, Judaism or all three, but from the article it sounds as though their adherents all accept that their religions allowed polygamy at some point.  See this bible quote (it's referenced by the Polygamy article).  I wonder whether the bible has any references to women with multiple husbands? Bistromathic 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poligamy 

message: In the side box at the top of the page, the links for "Prophets " and "Writings" are switched.  "Prophets" points to the Ketuvim page, and "Writings" points to "Nevi'im".  Ketuvim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "writings", and Nevi'im is the same for the Hebrew word meaning "prophets".  I would fix this myself, but I cannot figure out how to edit the side box.  Thank you. Ganonsghost 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Links