Jump to content

Talk:Bible

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Biblist)
Former featured article candidateBible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 5, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Dating

[edit]

The use of CE and BCE is objectionable, especially in the context of writing about the Bible. It makes no sense at all especially when CE and BCE are counted from the same point as AD and BC: the (formerly accepted) date of the birth of Christ. It seems to be the height of wokery.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

[edit]

Diverse religious communities have compiled religious texts into various official collections. The earliest known collection consisted of the initial five books of the Bible. This information highlights the historical significance of religious texts as a means of preserving cultural and spiritual beliefs for future generations. Yumyam (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hru 2603:6011:7DF0:24E0:35DB:40F1:C48D:AE42 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic

[edit]

“The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period.” Plain wrong. Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic. Earlier cuneiform writings, esp from Sumeria and Ugarit, were incorporated, but the Bible is a much later work (c. 1100 BCE) arising around the time of the development of the first alphabet of proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. Philip.e.kahn (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on paleo-Hebrew, but I don't know any scholar worth his salt who dates the Bible to 1100 BCE. Or any book of it, whatsoever. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly WP:OFFTOPIC

[edit]

It seems redundant to have both "Criticism" and "Biblical Criticism" sections. These has to be merged and streamlined as this isn't a critique-driven article. StarkReport (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism means opposition;
Biblical Criticism means an academic field, it does not mean opposing the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible are different things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... That makes sense. In the meantime, I am thinking of repositioning the "Criticism" section after the "Literature and the Arts" section, as such sections are usually placed at the bottom of their parent sections. StarkReport (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (to clarify): Septuagint section

[edit]

Para.3, "The apocrypha are": the penult. sentence, "In modern Judaism", is open to confusing misreading. (". . none of the apocryphal books are . . excluded from the canon" . . wait, what?)

May I recommend splitting the sentence? - "In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic. All are therefore excluded from the canon." 84.9.116.66 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), remember? that's why it says "In modern Judaism" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. It looks as if the way I phrased my request added to the confusion?! (And maybe my suggestion, to split the sentence, would be overdoing it.)
Yes, LXX includes the apocrypha. Yes, "in modern Judaism none .. are accepted".
How about amending the sentence I'm unhappy with like this?:
In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic and they are therefore excluded from the canon. 2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (wrong word; + link): Final form section

[edit]

Final para., "Copies of some", final sentence, "The Septuagint is": parenthetic phrase glossing the term "recension", "(revised addition of the text)", should be "(revised edition of the text)".

And I suggest the term being glossed, "recension", should be a link (to the existing article on that).

So I'm requesting for the sentence to read as follows (in Wikitext):

The Septuagint is now seen as a careful translation of a different Hebrew form or recension (revised edition of the text) of certain books, but debate on how best to characterize these varied texts is ongoing.[1] 2A00:23C4:CE01:2601:1C86:1EFE:2CA4:102D (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fitzmeyer 1992, p. 41.

Like... Who wrote it

[edit]

Deep in the history, almost every religion was written by someone, one question, who wrote the Bible? -_- 176.98.71.70 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the authors of the Bible have remained anonymous. The mainstream academic view is that the four NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible is a compilation, different bits are from different centuries. You might find Mosaic authorship interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first line

[edit]

should "to a certain degree" ... is held sacred etc etc be "to varying degrees". It is held sacred in Christianity and Judaism, inter alia. 2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]