Talk:Bible/Archive 5

True?

However, according to scholars, inspiration is not extended to the transmitted texts or the translation of those texts; rather, it is the original documents (called the autographa) that are inspired.

I changed the word scholars to the names Zuck and Campbell, since that is all the reference supported. I wonder how true this claim is concerning Christianity. Certain Christian groups, it would seem, teach something different. For example, certain ecumenical councils have accepted parts of texts as inspired that, it would seem, were not part of the autograph; also, Matthew in its Greek version seems to be the accepted text, without trouble over searching for any Hebrew original. Whatever the case, the autographs being lost it seems that often the role of the Christian Church in the development of scripture is incorporated by many theological interpretations, and this “back to basics scholarly reconstruction of the autograph” seems to be a particularly arcane view of inspiration. Lostcaesar 07:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most common Protestant view. For example, see article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars. -- Cat Whisperer 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we can cite that source in reference to protestant beliefs. Lostcaesar 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well only for AMERICAN Protestants sureley!?

---

Added the additional references suggested and modified verbiage to match. As noted by the references this view is not new. Just like any any study as new evidences and arguments are put forth, clarification is needed. Charles Ryrie writes in 'Basic Theology’ on page 67

"While many theological viewpoints would be willing to say the Bible is inspired, one finds little uniformity as to what is meant by inspiration. Some focus it on the writers; others, on the writings; on the readers. Some relate it to the general message of the Bible; others, to the thoughts; still others, to the words. Some include inerrancy; many don’t. Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching."

Look at any field of study or science and you find the same process, as people come together and debate, better understanding of others views and concerns are rooted out and in the end progress and clarification are made. No matter if the field is Evolution, Medicine, Physics, or Theological studies, facts are assimilated, hypothesis and theories formulated, tested and debated to the point where there is acceptance and papers are written.

Thanks for you comments and suggestions Lostcaesar and Cat Whisperer.

Znuttyone 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Material from intro put here for possible use in a place other than the introduction

I removed this paragraph from the intro because: (1) The first sentence, while apparently true, is a specific historical insight that begs many questions about the secular and religious scholarly work over the past several centuries; there's a whole book to write just on that one issue. (2)The second sentence confuses secular and religious scholarly work, and part of it is also overly specific for the intro (specific possibilities of archaeological sites matching up with biblical descriptions-- there's a whole book's worth of material right there too). ... Kenosis 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution in Europe and America brought skepticism regarding the divine origin and historical accuracy of the Bible. Some scholars continue to use the Bible as a historical document, as there are archeological sites that match biblical descriptions of events and places, including possible sites for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the ruins remaining after the fall of Jericho. ... 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the previous removal from the intro. This is good stuff, but too POV and too specific for the intro of this article. It includes sources for the Chicago statement on inerrancy, and a historical assertion of perceived inerrancy by Geisler and Nix, as well as a very specific reference to Philo of Alexandria as a citation to belief in sacred texts.

• Belief in sacred texts is attested to in Jewish antiquity, and this belief can also be seen in the earliest of Christian writings. Various texts of the Bible mention Divine agency in relation to prophetic writings, the most explicit being 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." However, the Bible neither gives a list of which texts are inspired and their exact contents, nor a precise theological definition of what inspiration entails.

• In their book A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix wrote that the: "process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God, but the result of this process is a verbal, plenary, inerrant, and authoritative record." Some biblical scholars, particularly Evangelicals, associate inspiration with only the original text; for example, the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy asserted that inspiration applied only to the "autographic text of Scripture". ... 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Agree the intro is not really an intro, seems to be a place people have placed items of criticism rather than facts. I agree with a previous post, we need more 'introductory type info' number of books, authors, current scholars view so dates written etc.. am on the road this week, will look at this next week and see if I can come up with something all can agree on. Znuttyone 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Was a POV/biased article until...

This article hada "Criticism of the Bible" section but not a "Advocacy of the Bible" section. I added a Advocacy of the Bible section. ken 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Cleanup again

There are some misspellings on the tagged article, but I can't verify what the correct spelling is. Please someone fix it.

Alexander Gibson

I we reverting some obvious vandalism on this article when I also reverted the addition of the name "Alexander Gibson" to the criticism section. There was no link to this person and no reference as to why he was added, so I am assuming that it was vandalism as well. If this is a mistake, please add the name back in along with a Wiki link or a reference. -Orayzio 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of presentation

WHy is the the first section in an article for the Bible a big reproduction of the Tanakh article? The Tanakh has it's own article. I'm considering a drastic change to this article along the lines of reordering the presentation of the info and removing duplicated article type info. Thoughts? --Home Computer 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For Jews, the Tanackh is the Bible. NPOV requires that we include not just the Christian Bible but the Jewish Bible as well. Since many books of the Christian Bible were written after the books in the Hebrew Bible, I think it makes sense regarding the order of presentation to present the Hebrew Bible first. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the overlap of the Jewish Bible with the first section of the Christian Bible means that the arrangement seems logical to me. Lostcaesar 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

well no kidding. My point is, there allready IS an article for the Tanackh. The Christian Bible mainpage is this one. Jews don't refer to thier text as "the Jewish bible". I am going to remove all duplicated material soon except for a concise intro to the main discussion unless there is a wikifiable reason not to.. Remember, the phrase Bible refers to the Chritian text 99% of the time. And the Hebrew Bible has a great page in and of itself and doesn't need to be duplicated. Peace. --Home Computer 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe for you Bible means Christian Bible 99% of the time. for me it means Tanakh 100% of the time. So, I gues you and I have different points of view. Guess what? this is why we have an NPOV policy. both views must be represented in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Allright sorry for getting sarcastic, almost always the term Bible means Old and New testaments of the Christian text. Almost never does the term Bible mean "just the old testament". Actually, lets move this discussion down below where others have joined if you dont mind. --Home Computer 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion results.. I was totally wrong. :) peace. --Home Computer 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some keeps putting vandelism into the article, such as:

• God said "thou must sex daily, or thine dang wilst fallith off, like a lepers nose"

Vandelism is against the Wikipedia rules. Whoever's doing it, STOP!!!

This is happening with some consistency to this article. This is the very weakness of the system, and it is vandalism (note the spelling) like this that causes the collapse of good-faith projects such as Wikipedia. I hope that we can guard against these attacks that demonstrate nothing more than the contributor's lack of respect for other people and the weakness of their own beliefs (or lack thereof). - Yonah mishael 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge TNK section with Old Testament section

I am preparing to slim down and reorganize some of this article. It seems pointless to me to include "The Old testament" in a the section on the "Christian Bible" and the Tanak in the section on the "Hebrew Bible". In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there. For other uses of the word Bible (eg Satanic Bible, Mechanics Bible, Koran, whatever) the disambiguation page should serve well. As to the material related to Judaism, include only what is pertinant the discussion on what is commonly called the Bible.. so maybe a concise few paragraphs on History, pre Christ cannonicity, translation, etc. Lets get this article up to par. and as always CITE!!! Don't do original research here, CITE the NOTable Experts. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, before any of this happens, we should probably reach consensus that this article should be about the Christian Bible. As it stands, the article is currently about the broader concept of the Bible in the Judeo-Christian traditions. We have an article about the term "Hebrew Bible" which is used by acedemics to describe the set of books called the Old Testament by Christians, and the Tanakh by Jews. So those two articles are basically POV forks of the same topic. Then we have this article, which describes both the Christian Bible, and the Jewish Bible. It seems like there is a lot of redundent material on wikipedia, but I personally feel that the article, in order to be NPOV, should cover both Christian and Jewish bibles. Maybe we can condense material that is already covered in spinout articles, but I think it would be a step in the wrong direction to cut the Jewish POV out of this article, and make the word Bible on wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with Christian scriptures|Andrew c]] 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the section on the Hebrew Bible or not include what other religions use as thier holy texts but The focus needs to be squarely on what people consider the Bible. Jews do not call thier sacred texts the Jewish Bible, Jews don't call it the Hebrew Bible.. The first big section in the article on "THE BIBLE" should consist of what is commonly considered the Bible. --Home Computer 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there" is not a plan for a class act article, it is a plan for a major NPOV violation. "The Bible" as such must include the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Tanach is not the same thing as the Old Testament. If anything, this article could benefit from some more explanation as to why they are not the same. I agree that there are some redundancies. Perhaps this page should not even exist, and should serve as a disambiguation page for the articles on the Biblical canon, Tanakh, and Christian Bible. I suspect that all valid information in this article can be (if it is not already0 distributed among those three articles. But let's have some discussion before making such a change. In the meantime, if the article is "Bible" any attempt to rewrite this from an explicitly Christian POV is a violation of NPOV and I will revert it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Slurb, please review the article Tanack. it is not the same as saying "Jewish Bible" The Tanack actually is only the books of the Herew origin that Christians use as well. It actually is the same thing as the old testament as held by protestant Christian religions. --Home Computer 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the two above statements by Andrew and Slrub, and I would like to make the following observations. Part of the confusion I think is on the use of phrases like "Jewish Bible" and "Hebrew Bible". The proper term is Tanakh; furthermore, calling the Old Testament any of the three aforementioned labels is inaccurate. As has been stated previously, these are not the same. The article here nicely avoids this mistake, but many other articles on wikipedia mistakenly treat "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as synonyms. If there is any improvement to be made to end confusion, it should be on the proper use of these terms. As for removing the content about the Tanakh / Jewish bible from this page, as said above, I reject this, for many reasons, not least of which because it would remove vital information — one's understanding of the Christian bible declines when it is severed from its Jewish roots and context. This is an article on the Bible: a Judeo-Christian entity.Lostcaesar 12:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostceaser, do you oppose my proposal to turn this into a disambiguation page for Biblical canon (which would describe the process by which different canons formed, and what the differences are between different canons), Tanakh and a new article, Christian Bibles? By the way, I am not committed to this proposal and have no objection if everyone else wants to keep this article more or less as it is. But I'd like to know your reasoning regarding the proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn over what we should do. My first reaction to turning this page into a disambig page was positive. But I was confused on how a Christian Bibles article would look (would it just be this article minus the Hebrew Bible section?), and how this differed from Home Computer's suggestion. It seems like every section we would like to cover has a spinout article to cover it, so we face a lot of the same issues that come up at Jesus. I think it may be best to keep the article in the current format, but perhaps doing a better job of sumarizing content that is covered in the spinout articles.--Andrew c 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Slruben, I am really not sure; my first reaction is, on the one hand, that restructuring is needed, but on the other hand the Bible is a richer concept than just a canonical list, and it is the richer concept that I think people regularly identify with the Bible. Also, though there are different canonical lists for Christian groups, and in that sense different Christian Bibles, concerning the richer meaning there is a different sort of line of division and similarity. Just some thoughts.Lostcaesar 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. "The Bible" as a concept is potentially huge. For such a prevelantly discussed topic there deserves to be a rich and proffessionaly written article. --Home Computer 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Allright I'm very glad to see all the response this got. :) Stay with me for a second. The term Bible over 99% of the time refers to that Christian text that has sold more copies than any other book in existance. When one types in Bible on Wiki this article pops up and it appears confusing. The Christian Bible consists of the Old testament (for which we have decided to use the term "Hebrew Bible" and the New Testament for which we have the term "Christian Bible" so now we are opperating with two separate definitions of "Christian Bible" and furthermore "old testament" is a sub heading of the "Christian Bible" section. These are key issues that I feel needs to be resolved to make this article less confusing and more usefull. --Home Computer 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in the approach of this article. This article is not devided into Old/New Testament section using the strange terms "Hebrew Bible" for the fomer and "Christian Bible" for the latter. Instead, the article is broken into POVs. The first main section deals with the Jewish POV. The second main section deals with the Christian POV. As Lostcaesar so keenly points out, there is a little redundency in that the same basic books get covered twice due to the "Old testament" vs "TNK" issue. So the reason why Old Testament (and New Testament) are subheadings to the Christian Bible section is because they are both included in the Christian Bible (just as Torah, Nevi'i, and Ketuvim get subheadings for the Hebrew Bible section). Maybe there needs to be restructuring, editing, condensing, what have you. But I stand firm in my belief that including the Jewish POV in this article is not only important, but necessary to be inclusive per NPOV policy. Why is it confusing that you get this page when you type in "bible"? Maybe spelling out your concern can help us make this page better. Do we need to make it even more clear that the word "bible" is used by both English speaking Christians and English speaking Jews?--Andrew c 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. restructuring, not deletion. I think the old testament section in the Christian Bible needs to be completely reworked, but then what would it be but basically a copy of earlier stated material. This somehow should be reconcilled. And I'm not sure where you get this from but Jews, especially in my family.. do NOT use the word Bible to describe the torah or anything else.. so a Jewish POV on the phrase "the Bible" is not accurate here. --Home Computer 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT merge DIFFERENT terms that express different concepts

Question for User:Andrew c are you seriously proposing that the factual and true source for the Bible as a whole, which happens to be the Jews and Judaism, and their teachings about the Bible which are the foundations of the Bible (both as "Old Testament" or "New Testament" or as simply the originators of the "Hebrew Bible") should be cut out of this article? So what kind of Bible is this? A Christian Bible? Guess what...big problem...the Christians did not "invent" the Bible, the Jews did! Indeed without what the Jews taught in their Tanakh, the very notion of a "Messiah" makes no sense and has no context, because guess what, Christians did not "invent" the concept of a Messiah, the Jews did! Thus if the fact and truth is too much for anyone to handle, that the Jews are the originators of both the original Bible and of the notion of Messiah, then one should go back and brush up on the basics of the facts about both the origin of Christianity and what Judaism contributed to it. Wikipedia is not designed to convey the "pure theological view" of any one group, rather, as an encyclopedia it conveys the facts. And the facts are that (a) First there was a Torah and a Tanakh held and taught by Judaism for Jews only, and that is most certainly referred to as The Bible by Jews and by Judaism (since all the word "Bible" means is "book" a very innocuous word, if ever there was one.) Then (b) along came the early Christians and built a story about a Jewish person called Jesus who was convinced that he was the Jewish Messiah and followers that came after him postulated that he qualified based on passages in the Hebrew Bible (they did not bring proofs from any other sources - because there were none, it was all a Jewish in-house affair), then the followers of Jesus decided that the world needed a "New Testament" so they wrote it, and the only way a "New Testament" makes any sense in the first place is if there must be a reliable entrenched "Old Testament" in place already that was always accepted as true and withstood the test of time. So let's resist revisionism to pretend that Christianity and the New Testament had an "immaculate conception" and came out of thin air when in fact and in truth both Christianity and its later texts came directly out Judaism and the "Old Testament" - and the catch is that Jews do NOT call it or regard it as an "Old Testament," God forbid, but as an ongoing living Torah and Tanakh - so no-one will ever be able to escape or disregard those facts. So to now write a contrived article that will contain only the Christian POV will not do any justice to either Christianity or to the truth. Finally, this article has always tried to respectfully clarify the terminology used by both Christianity or Judaism in their own contexts, and in turn the rest of the article was built around that. It was a good solution and has worked well to introduce readers into the totality of this subject and not just to vainly hoped for Christian version. IZAK 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing for what you are saying. A Christian POV argument would be completely wrong here and no one is pushing for that. We need to come to a consensus on what the world means when the Bible is used and right an NPOV article on that.. the current version is looking great in my opinion. No POV sections, one section dealing with the books of the TNK and the Old testament. Another section dealing with the New Testament. It looks good. The old information is not disapearing. --Home Computer 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with you. I think you have mistaken me for Home Computer? Or did I say something that came out wrong, because really, I agree with you.--Andrew c 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:) Yeah I wrote on his page that I think he meant me not you. Either way the article looks great right now. And I think everyone (including me) is happy with it. Peace/Shalom. --Home Computer 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. IZAK, Slrubenstein, Lostcaesar, and Dovi, in addition to myself (basically everyone who has thrown in on this) has been AGAINST merging the OT section with the TNK section. I hate to speak for everyone, but I for one am not happy with the current version. Please see my comment below (and hopefully others will chime in to correct me if I am wrong, or support me).--Andrew c 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian adopt the TNK as thier own. Do you propose a new OT section that completely duplicates the TNK section over a note withing the TNK section denoting the Christian difference? --Home Computer 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See Lostcaeser's comment below (with a time-stamp shortly before this one). Christians do not adopt the Tanakh as their own. The Tanakh is a stand-alone collection of books in a given order. Christians change the order and recast the books as a story that leads to the new Testament. This gives (or finds) in these books meanings utterly at odds with the meanings Jews find in the Tanakh. Many of the words may be the same, but their meanings are utterly different. For Jews, Tanakh and Old Testament refer to two different things. this may not be how Christians see it, but it is how Jews see it - which means we have two different points of view, and both need to be expressed in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If that view is appropriate expressed by notable sources then I think it would definately be appropraite to demonstrate those differences between the TNK and the OT in the Hebrew Bible section.. with citations of course. --Home Computer 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add my support for not merging the Tanakh and Old Testament sections, since they describe different things. As for listing the differences, why in the Tanakh section, why not in the Old Testament section? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents — "Bible" is Inclusive

It was stated in the above comments that "over 99% of the time refers to that Christian text that has sold more copies than any other book in existance [sic, existence]", but this is simply an inflated statistic that relates only to the contributor's personal religious experience. As a member of a Reform Jewish Congregation in the United States, I would like to add my experience that we regularly use the term "Bible" to describe our religious text. Granted, in Hebrew we have different terms (most notably, Tanakh and Mikra), but it is a very common thing to simply say "Bible." In our synagogue, we do not say "Jewish Bible" or "Hebrew Bible" because in the circumstance that would be redundant. This article should NOT (IMHO) be slimmed down to discuss only the Christian meaning while relegating all other pertinent perspectives to footnotes or subsections. - Yonah mishael 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Tag?

Why is the Christian tag placed on the section speaking only of the New Testament as if the "Christian Bible" was just the New testament. This is another confusing presentational issue I plan on correcting..

• Hello? Who's speaking please? Kindly sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that (a) you can gain credibility, and (b) people can get some sense of who saying what to whom. Thanks. IZAK 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Current layout

ok, As AndrewC noted earlier, the current layout is presented in terms of POV's here's the current format:

BIBLE

Basic Intro

Jewish POV

Christian POV

Cannonization and text Transalation and other textual info

Arguments po and con

refferences

---

edit: Here is the proposed change in place

Bible basic Intro

Hebrew Bible (identified correctly as used by Chrisitans and Jews) TNK Old test

New testament etc etc

and so on..

Now my question is, was this a deliberate design or is this just how it fell into place? I would argue that this layout is not effective in presenting the info most sought in a clear way. I totally agree that all notable sides of an argument need to be presented but I do not think that dividing into Jew vs Christian presentation is the best way to introduce the Bible especially when "The Bible" (title of the article) is not a phrase Jews describe Jewish sacred text with. The phrase Jewish Bible is actually from the POV of gentiles. otherwise you wouldn't call it the "Jewish Bible".

I'm not sure how to fix this. I do not believe that organization by Religious POV on the phrase "The Bible" is helpful.. it's also a misnomer as the Christian POV seems to encompass everything in the "Hebrew Bible" section. I think almost all of the info currently in the article is good but misplaced.

I think we need to come up with new ways of categorising this info, but I think that most of the info is good. --Home Computer 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer continues to push an odd point of view. first, the current organization of the article is not according to points of view. It presents the Hebrew Bible first, then the Christian Bible. This is logical as the Hebrew Bible was compiled before the Christian one. Second, neither the article nor anyone else on this talk page suggests that the Hebrew Bible=the Old Testament. In fact they are not at all the same and it is wrong to suggest they are. Finally, in English Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible." Home Computer's claim to the contrary is simply wrong and in this context I wonder if he is trolling. Jews will call the Bible "the Hebrew Bible" when talking to Christians. And yes, when talkin in Hebrew they will call it the Tanakh. Sometimes when talking iin English they call it the Tanakh too. But I have countless books by Jews, and have had countless conversations in temples and synagogues, in yeshivas and in seminaries, where Jews would refer to "the Bible" when talking about the sacred books that predate the Mishnah, whether Genesis (yes, Jews use this word too!!) or Ecclesiases. And when they say "Bible" they are not including the Christian canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you're wrong. The terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Jewish Bible" are never used by Jewish people to descirbe Jewish Holy Books. "Bible" refers to the Christian works. Your perspective is not a Jewish one and arguable shouldn't be used to synthesize the Jewish POV section. Secondly, the information that goes into the TNK section and the Old testament section are going to be identical with the exception of a few sentances for things that happened after Zecharaiah. Because the Old Testament section needs to be updated and since it would contain the exact same info as the "Hebrew Bilbe" section I suggest a Christian vs Jewish format is not fluid, clear nor productive in this article. --Home Computer 16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Side note I WAS WRONG. Among English speaking Jews "the Bible" may refer to the TNK or the entire christian version.. so this definately should be noted and currently is. peace. :) --Home Computer 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Think again. In Denmark, where I live, The Jewish Community in Denmark, the officially recognized religious community, also uses the term "Bible" to refer to our Holy Books (albeit in Danish the Bible is translated to Bibelen). --SFDan 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well when I start editing Bibelen I'll be sure to keep that in mind. ;) hehe. Peace. --Home Computer 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also here's the crazy part, this article allready identifies "The Bible" as being a Christian related term in the second section.. so now you're disagreeing with terms allready agreed upon. Look, I'm not trying to mess everything up. This is an important article in my POV because of "The Bible"'s prevelance in discussions in liturature, media, etc..--Home Computer 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Bible" and related terms ("biblical") are commonly used among English-speaking Jews for the Jewish Bible specifically. No other term (not even "Tanakh") is as prevalent. Vigorous denials of this will not change the fact, and I suggest that Home Computer drop his strange claim to the contrary; just because he himself is personally unfamiliar with the fact (or uncomfortable with it) doesn't make it any less true.

"I suggest a Christian vs Jewish format is not fluid, clear nor productive in this article..." On the contrary, such a format (for at least part of the article) is demanded by historical reality: The are indeed two basic canons contending for the title of "Bible" in the dual Judeo-Christian tradition, and no amount of wishful thinking can change this blatant fact.

Personally, I have just observed this article in the past but never much touched it. This is partly because I think that the basic organization as it stands is actually more or less what is called for. That it entails a certain amount of redundancy is also not so troubling, since these are indeed overlapping, but not identical, concepts. Though they overlap they are each extremely important in their own right, so the nature of the redundancy is dictated by the nature of the material.

In any event, I suggest waiting to continue this conversation until Sunday evening, when the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah ends in the diaspora (here in Israel where I live it already ended tonight). Computers are not used on Simchat Torah :) Dovi 16:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. To clarify, You'd support the complete redunancy of a several page duplication from one POV section to the other POV section as opposed to a unified approach with differences noted? Also, Maybe my cousins just don't use the word "bible" around us goyim to avoid confusion. ;)

Also, when one types "the Bible" into google, what percent refers to the Jewish Bilbe and is that relevant to the discussion? peace. --Home Computer 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: OK check out the current intro to the "Hebrew Bible" section. It contains pretty much all the info to qualify it self as both a section on the TNK and the Old testament. The intro to that section is worded pretty well. I'm thinking there does not need to be an additional Old Testament section later on with the current wording in the Hebrew Bible section.. --Home Computer 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I've made minor arrangements what do you think about them? The Hebrew section contains all the relevant for both religious POVS. Seriously.. duplicating that would kill the article. That's all the change I'm pushing for. --Home Computer 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as Home Computer insists that "The terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Jewish Bible" are never used by Jewish people to descirbe Jewish Holy Books. "Bible" refers to the Christian works," I see no hope for productive collaboration. He is pushing his own point of view while denying that of most English-sepaking Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1st, I don't insist that read above conversation with Dovi. 2nd, It's not my POV I was pushing if this article is a list of conflicing POVs I was maintaining that the one held by more should be presented prominently, however I also argue this should not be a POV listing. It should be one article from an Npov stance.. 3rd, don't be so dramatic. :) We've only been discussing for a few days.. there's always hope for a peaceful concensus. --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not understand the difficulty. We have established that the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament are different entities. We have established that the concept “Bible” described here is a Judeo-Christian idea. Since the two are thus both related and different, we have established two sections to describe them both, with the earlier text chronologically (and, in the Christian canon, structurally) having been placed first. I don’t see where we can really go from here, or what is wrong with this basic framework. There are many contributions that need to be made to the article and many areas of improvement to concentrate on besides this matter. It seems settled to me. Lostcaesar 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost Cesar, here was the whole difficulty.. the old testament section needed both revision and increased visibillity in the article. A full revision of the section would yield nearly 6 pages of identical information, a duplication of earlier writing onthe Hebrew Bible. Furhtermore, looking more into the definition of Hebrew Bible we find that it is an academic term used to describe BOTH the Jewish TNK and the Christian OT. So what's the logical conslusion of that? That the initial section be revised to include both the TNK and the OT. Now all of the problems are solved. POV sections are GONE, True chonologial listing makes sense, no duplications, more fluid, more clear. And this is moot but technically speaking, Chronologically (technically speaking) the OT and the "Jewish Bible" were written at the same time. Peace. :) --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could use revision in certain ways and places, but I think energy would be better spend elsewhere. Perhaps you could mention specifics. As for HB vs OT, they are not the same, and if an academic uses them as such then the acedemic is in error, simple as that. Probably an error flowing from obcession with being pc, but if pc = error then it must be sidestepped. Lostcaesar 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi LC, thanks for responding again. I think all the issues have been resolved in the current edition of the article. You may be right on why the scholarly position to use the Hebrew Bible term as a neutral term for both the TNK and the OT bay be PC. Non-the-less, One section referring to all the books from Genesis to Zechariah (or Gen to Mal depending upon how you order them) should suffice perfectly because the books are in fact identical. The only difference is in what order the books are arranged. That order shouldn't justify a complete duplication of all the material (one copy for each POV) but rather, concise notations as to the difference (only one nPOV copy). Peace & thanks again for discussing. --Home Computer 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have little difficulty with what you say, Lostcaser. I would say not that "Bible" is a Judeo-Christian idea" but an English word (derived from Greek) used by both Jews and Christians although to refer to different things. If this is just a wordy version of what you mean, well, I guess it is just semantics and we agree. I just want to be clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking Bible (or any european translation of the Greek word Bibia, has since the Bible's (Christian) inception been used to describe the Bible. Fast forward several Hundred years and in pop Jewsish culture it has also been adopted to refer to thier Holy Text as well as exhastively inclusive technical manuals. (the handyman's Bible, etc). It's by no means the main word used or a scholarly (in my understanding) usage. Again, I may be wrong. And lots of times I am. Live and learn yes? :) peace. --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first google hit I get for "Hebrew Bible" is a Jewish source: [1] So is the very first hit I get for "Jewish Bible" [2]. Here's a useful Jewish site that just refers to it as "The Bible" [3] Here's another: [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wrong for sure on the common American Jewish usage of the word. --Home Computer 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, "Bible" is the term used by both Jews and Christians for their Bibles, and is the term used for both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Both Random House and American Heritage dictionaries give both usages as the meaning of the word "Bible". Please don't shunt this usage off into an "other" section again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert the hitsorical information that's been added. No one has been "shunted" all the information is still there in the first section. Many people use the word Bible and it's all in there. Please don't use the word shunt. It hurts my feelings. :O) --Home Computer 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bi‧ble  /ˈbaɪbəl/ –noun
1.the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
2.Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
3.(often lowercase) the sacred writings of any religion.
4.(lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem. sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary
Bi·ble (bbl) n.
1.

• 1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New *Testament.
• 2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
• 3. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
• 4. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.

2. often bible A book considered authoritative in its field: the bible of French cooking.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin biblia, from Greek, pl. of biblion, book diminutive of biblos, papyrus, book, from Bublos Byblos.] --Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these defs. (whoe ever did forgot to sign) I think the best part of those definitions is that they say exactly what the article says before you revert it. 1. Sacred books of Christianity 2. Also Jewish texts 3. Also other writing including technical stuff. That's what the article says, so why are you reverting to remove all of that? --Home Computer 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the common uses are both the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Other uses are unusual, and you've violated NPOV by misrepresenting that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common usage for the word "Bible" is first in that definition and also is first in the articles definition. The second most prevelent in both the cited definitions and the article is the second mentioned and so forth. The article lines up with the definitions pretty well so I guess I don't understand what the problem is. --Home Computer 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The way this should be structured is: (1) The two definitions that refer to the two classical biblical canons, i.e. the ones that the dictionaries say are normally capitalized. (2) A link for all secondary (uncapitalized) usages to Bible (disambiguation), for things such as "the bible of Science Fiction", etc. The current version, including and especially the introductory paragraphs, is preposterous: both biased and insulting.

I move that this article be reverted to its previous form before the recent shifts introduced by Home Computer, to a version such as this[[5]]. Elegant? Not particularly, and could use serious rewriting by a brave person. But at least balanced.

When stable versions are introduced, this article should be a prime candidate, given its prominence and level of controversy. It is a picture of collaboration over time by many users, and should not be prone to major changes that are immediately incorporated.Dovi 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel strongly that that version was imbalanced. I feel also feel that I'm getting ganged up on here from many people representing paricular POV's without hearing my own. I can be corrected whe I am wrong about facts, no problem. But I'd really like the issues I'm bringing up to be looked at without people like Slurb calling me racist for my concerns. This article is important and I'm afraid it's getting completely POV'd in an undue manner. I'd lime to remove all POV (not counter balance all POV) and just represent what it is from neutral standpoints. --Home Computer 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dovi, also and again, since there was no Old Testament section to speak of.. and much work has been done over the last week, if the concencus is again to separate into a Christian Vs. Jewish template, please consider a rewrite over a revert. A rewrite would at least generate new perspectives on the situation and perhaps someone with more understanding than I could come and help that section. --Home Computer 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, be warned: you are perilously close to being a troll. It should now be clear to you that for Jews the Bible is their sacred literature and refers to the books beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles II. Christians have their own Bible. But for you to continuously insist that "the Bible" must refer only to the sacred literature of Christians, and not Jews, verges on anti-semitism. Stop it. Keep doing it, and I will revert you automatically with no explanation as Jayjg, IZAK< and I have already given you thorough explanations. You ask me to "talk to you directly." Well, I already talked to you directly, and I am talking to you directly now. Stop pushing your anti-Semitic POV in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rubenstien don't be silly. Other's have been able to discuss the issue with me without being rude. You continuously misrepresent my proposals and cause confusion. You still don't understand what I was proposing for change. --Home Computer 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How is attempting to reserve the term "Bible" for Christian scriptures, rather than Jewish, anti-Semitic? It is merely incorrect, not antisemitic. There's nothing Jew-hating in a statement inappropriately reserving the term "Bible" to Christians. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked on my user talk page to take a look at this discussion.

Of course the Christian usage is more common, but only because Christians so outnumber Jews. Jews speaking English normally refer to Jewish scripture as "biblical" and to the canonical collection as "The Bible" or, in an interfaith context "The Jewish Bible" or "The Hebrew Bible". You will notice that numerous Jews, covering a broad spectrum of views on religion, have weighed in and we all have pretty much exactly the same experience of English-language Jewish usage.

Also, of course, the term Bible entered the English language in a Christian context. Few words in the English language before the last century or so entered the language in a Jewish context. That does not mean the the word now continues to have only a Christian usage.

Home Computer, you started this out clearly ignorant of the matter, writing 'The terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Jewish Bible" are never used by Jewish people to descirbe (sic) Jewish Holy Books.' At this point you seem to be acknowledging that you were wrong on the fundamental facts, but you seem to want to draw the same conclusions. I have to say, I tend to agree with Slrubenstein: that looks to me like trolling. And I sincerely doubt that anyone is proposing "nearly 6 pages of identical information": that is almost certainly a strawman argument.

As for Judeo-Christian: that is, to paraphrase Musil, a Christian, plus a Jew, minus the Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JMabel, you are correct I was totally wrong. I was not familiar enough with Jewish usage of the word "Bible" it was my ignorance combined with an editorial boldness that started much of the problems. The other issue though was the complete lack of an good Old Testament section. There is quite an extensive "Hebrew Bible" section that yields almost all of the same info that a good OT section would have. It is roughly 6 pages. That's all I meant in that reference. The differences between OT and TNK can be noted rather concisely where the overlapping information is volumnous. Peace --Home Computer 17:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Jew, I am fine with calling the Jewish version of the Bible the "Jewish Bible" or the "Hebrew Bible", the "Tanakh", or the "Scriptures" (and even the "Jewish Testament"). I feel, and I suppose other anglophone Jews feel, that "Old Testament" is a Christian concept, linked to the Christian idea of Jesus being a New Law supplementing the Old Law. I also think that Home Computer is trolling and would do well to calm down a bit. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to troll. I'm just passionate about editing Bible links. The fact that many of those from completely different POV's (and perhaps better religious educations) are equally passionate is why there is so much friction. But your point is taken and maybe I'll take a break soon. --Home Computer 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Canon Dispute

LostCesar and anon person, I put up a tag and this discussion section because I can see the valid points you were making but thought it would be more appropriate to have the discussion here where anyone else coud chime in. ;) My two cents is that the info is pertient buyt just needs to be appropriately wikified. Peace. --Home Computer 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DOH! I keep forgetting to login. I'm not actually anon. I don't pretend to be the most up on the latest Wiki styles and formatting of what should go where. Sorry. I don't mind someone moving the content into a different area, as long as the facts are kept straight.  :) Shalom. --Solascriptura 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:) It looks like good info, also I agree with where you've placed it. I'm not sure what LoastCesar meant. The only suggestion I have is to make sure all info is presented in a "this is what's taught" manner as opposed to "this is the truth" manner but it looks like you did that pretty well too. Peace. --Home Computer 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that this is not the main article. That much detail belongs in the article on the Biblical canon. This is just a summary here. It is not about the Biblical canon, only the Bible. I am not trying to undo good faith changes (though I think this needs to be sourced), but they should be in the correct place. Please move this information into the main artile. Lostcaesar 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, i see your point. I agree that there is allot of info in that section that may be placed more appropriately in the article on Biblical Canon and concisely refferenced here only briefly. I've removed the tag and leave it up to you two to figure out how to copy all the info over and slim it all down for this one.. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rv'd the section again. The old text, which is unsourced, is saved in the history of pages, so the contributor can chase down sources and add the material to the main article in due time. The summary here will remain, and can be changed or updated as the main article develops. Lostcaesar 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC) p.s., I mean no ill will or anything, these are good faith edits and informative, but out of place and needing more references. (Lostcaesar 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

The inserted information was incorrect, as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there have been multiple people on talk who have said they support the previous version that kept the Jewish and Christian section seperate. However, the article has been edited to confuse this issue. The OT/TNK section is full of Jewish terminology and imagery (and the Judaism template), while the NT section has the Christian template next to it. I think its more confusing now, than it was before, and on top of that, it seemed like multiple people supported the old format. Seriously, does anyone support the current merger of the Jewish and OT sections?--Andrew c 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How does this add to the discussion on Canon? --Home Computer 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, I think the older structure was a fitting framework. The areas I want improved are concerning the life of the Bible, rather than just its conception, such as its significance in Syriac and Latin traditions, hitherto unmentioned. The current changes seem to make that sort of implementation more difficult. If I wanted to add a section on the Vetus Latina, where would I put it? New Testament? It doesn't work. Lostcaesar 07:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

controversial template

Added {{controversial}} due to discussions veering off. IZAK 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Introductory section

I hope that it was not out of place for a "newcomer" to this page to revise the opening section without a big discussion. I felt it needed to be more balanced, and perhaps an outsider could take a cooler look at the issues. Also the etymology and attributions as to "who did what and when" were lacking in references which could be provided. Best regards. --SFDan 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any immediate objections to what you wrote, and also thank you for the obvious effort. Let's see what others have to say. i can see some room for style/editorial changes but in substance I like what you did.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is "The Bible" The proper title for the Jewish writings as it is for Christians? I don't think it is. --Home Computer 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Literacy-Important-People-Hebrew/dp/0688142974/sr=1-5/qid=1161094085/ref=sr_1_5/102-0778441-3080104?ie=UTF8&s=books Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that link you posted demonstrates that the title "The Hebrew Bible" is the term being used (at least by American authors). I hate to get back to this topic but it seams that in English "the Bible" even though it's used sometimes to refer to the TNK is not the definitive nor scholarly term used for Jewish Holy Books (as the title "The Hebrew Bible" maybe) in the same sense as "The Bible" is for the Christian Holy books, am I wrong about that? The only reason it matters is for us to come up with a clear, documentably accurate definition. :) Our definition now looks a bit.. hairy.--Home Computer 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concencus Needed on Introductory Paragraph

Ok, the introduction has gotten way out of control. Every usage of the Word Bible is now being presented and it doesn't look good.

I agree with what some others have demonstrated as what should be up there, using some dictionaries as a refference we should list the most used meanings of the Word Bible, probably in order of prevalance. It looked good a few days ago but now looks kinda junky. What was wrong with this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&oldid=81868516 in my opinion that def listed the major definitions using the most prevelant first. What was lacking from that def? --Home Computer 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Jayjig above:

1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New *Testament.

2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.

3. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.

4. often bible A book considered authoritative in its field: the bible of French cooking.

I think this is an appropriate and nPOV model for our definition. --Home Computer 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

4 is irrelevant; 3 could be handeled through a disambig. page, and is not entierly relevent either. Lostcaesar 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 4 and 3 are unnecessary and should be handled on a disambiguation page (I only kept them there out of historic reasons when I offered my solution). I suggest that the disambiguation comment at the top of the article be changed to "This article ia about the sacred writings of both the Jewish and the Christian religions known as The Bible. For other uses see Bible disambiguation.", and then I would be quite comfortable and would encourage the removing of the other meanings from the article. They are already on the disambiguation page, so that does not really need to change at all. --SFDan 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that it will be an improvement when some of this introductory material is judiciously eliminated, and other parts are parceled out through the article. Meanwhile, my main objection is that the lead section is just too big. If it's going to stay as is for a while, it should at least be moved below the fold into an "Etymology and Usage" section or some such! Wareh 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if the longer etymology moves into another section, as long as the "old" (before revision) eymological conjecturing or misrepresentation in the first section stays out. --SFDan 05:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

K, looks nice. well done. --Home Computer 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, If it looked so nice at 14:37 why did you change it at 15:40. Dividing the first sentence into two (one of them being an incomplete sentence, at that) does not add value to the article. The previous sentence was inclusive and respects both religions' use of the term "Bible"; the revised sentences marginalizes or creates a secondary meaning. I don't particularly think its important in which order they appear in the dictionary-- it isn't a convincing argument at all for this revision. Besides there was no concensus around that issue. There was simply no discussion of it at all. IMO. --SFDan 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my wiki is showing that I made the edit at 14:35.. but why is that an issue? You cleaned it up a little and I expanded it to say what we agreed on.. The two most important dictionary definitions of the word Bible and disregarding the other definitions to the disambig page. I guess i'm not sure what you are asking for. --Home Computer 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making changes intended to downplay the use of the term in Judaism. Contrary to your edit summary claim, there's no consensus whatsoever for your continually doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now we are back to square one. Why introduce the dictionary definition if you are not going to use it as an example? --Home Computer 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions merely proved that both Judaism and Christianity used the term "Bible" for their holy scriptures, something you denied. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a little while back. Several people have pointed out where i was wrong and I've thanked them for it all over this discussion page. Now what's the deal with changing your mind on the definitions that should be used? --Home Computer 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one has "changed their mind on the definitions that should be used"; you're pretending agreement for your edits when no such agreement ever existed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted to the dictionary definition per the original discussion making sure it's all one sentance. Now why on earth would you want to downplay the Christian usage of the word "The Bible" and why would you not after all of the discussion to the contrary, want to use the agreed upon dictionary definitions. We all agreed on them until it was placed in the artiocle, then all of a sudden you feel that the dictionary is downplaying Judaism. What is going on here? --Home Computer 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep pretending an agreement when there is none. The introduction has listed the Bible as the Jewish and Christian scriptures for many, many months. In the past few days you've been trying to remove, and subsequently downplay, any reference to them being Jewish scriptures. No-one else here agrees with your doing this, so please get consensus for your proposed changes before making them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes for many months it was the same. But now we have a new discussion showing an agreement for something else. What was being proposed was the order and the content within the definition. Allow the definitions to be determined by relivance as displayed in the dictionary or by most used definitions. Please discuss. --Home Computer 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement for anything else, and never was; otherwise you wouldn't have to keep reverting people. You've reverted 3 people so far, and are now at 3 reverts for the day. Please don't make it 4. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2 reverts. The first the concern was that they needed to be in the same sentannce. The two reverts I've done were both yours. All 3 of your reverts were on mine.. like you've got some personal thing against me. --Home Computer 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you're very, very clear on this: Intial edit, first revert, second revert, third revert. Every time you put Christianity first you are reverting. I have nothing against you, but I want to make sure you understand this, because if you revert again that is the report that will be going to WP:AN/3RR, and you will inevitably be blocked for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on dividing article into Jewish vs Christian POV

Per Andrew C, there is a concencus among him, IZAK, Slrubenstein, Lostcaesar, and Dovi, with me dessenting that the article be redivided into a Christian vs. Jewish POV on the word Bible.

I think this is a bad idea for reasons noted above. My request is that if it is to be redivided that it not simply be reverted (that will bring us back to square one). Rework the article so as to create an appropriate section for the Christian Old Testament. It is my opinion that there doesn't need to be a section for the old testament because one section could deal with both the TNK and the OT even though the terms are not identical.

Nonetheless, it's my opinion that a concensus to remove the OT information would again knock the article way out of balance and into a very specific POV. This is no personal attack on any of you fine editors (except for the editor that threw around racist remarks, shame on you). Let's please come to a FULL npov concensus, and by that I mean please consider what I'm saying, though I'm the minority among us 6 I'm attempting to make sure that very prominently viewed information is correctly represented. Peace. --Home Computer 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible differ along too many terms to be discussed in the same section. Not only are they different structurally (arrangement of books), and not only do they have different content (extra, non-Hebrew books in the Old Testament), but they are understood differently. The Christian Old Testament is not a stand-alone collection of texts. Its meaning only comes into focus in relation with the New Testament. This difference is perhaps the most significant, and would be impossible to address if the two are conflated. On the flip side, from a Jewish perspective the Tanakh can and does stand on its own quite well. Lastly, you never addressed my very specific concern above. If I wanted to add information on (just for example) the Vetus Latina, in your restructured article, where would I put that? Lostcaesar 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Open a Bible if you will. In the most commonly published version of all time and the canon accepted by more peolpe around the world than any other, the OT has the exact same books as the TNK, only difference being order of books. The Christian OT most certainly is separate from the NT to the point that sometimes they are even published and distributed apart from one another by Christian publishers. Furthermore, according to our own wiki, the Hebrew Bible is identified as what scholars of Christianity and Judaism agree on as a nuetral term to describe both the TNK and the OT. The Christian usage of the Hebrew Bible should be a part of the Hebrew Bible section, but the difference of book order should definately be noted. Unless you want to rename the Hebrew Bible section to say TNK and write an entirely new section for the OT that has the exact same info as the TNK section with the exception of book order. --Home Computer 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you are incorrect. The biblical canon "accepted by more people around the world than any other" contains books not in the Hebrew: the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons contain these books, and the majority of Christians "around the world" are either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. And I just "opened my bible", and the extra books are still there, fyi. Second, wikipedia does not use other wikipedia articles as reference. Third, you did not address any of my other points. The section on the OT will not have "the exact same info" as the TNK section because it will discuss the various things I mentioned above, and besides it would concentrate more on the LXX. If you could address my other points, especially my question iterated twice, that would be a good advancement of the dialogue. Lostcaesar 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been trying to dig up the refference as to which version of the Bible is the most reproduced round the world to replace the link we currently use in that section. And while there are more Catholics in the World, I still think that the majority of Bibles published in the last 50 years(thanks to the huge ammount of conservative Christian Missionaries) have not included the Appocrapha as I noted above. I'm looking for the refferences right now.

Also to address your concerns about the differences between the TNK and the OT in the Hebrew Bible section, there allready is a paragraph that briefly notes the septuagent and apocrapha at the end of the Hebrew Bible section, it's only 2 paragraphs long. Are those the only changes to information you are concerned about? Peace. Don't get so harsh either, keep it civil plz. --Home Computer 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

HC, if you want to add content from a Protestant PoV that is one thing, but to reduce Jewish or Catholic / Orthodox content, or to restructure the article around a Protestant framework, is not the way to go. We need a framework to include all relevant views. On a more personal note, I will simply remind you that it was the Jews and then the Catholics that handed the Bible on to you, after all. Lostcaesar 17:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lostceaser 100%. Very clearly and well-explained, LC. I think the issue is this: to make these points clear, and provide adequate contextualization and elaboration, in the article itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also agree with Lostceasar and Slrubinstein. The Jewish Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Christian Old Testament reflect both somewhat different texts and also very different perspectives, with the OT being an opening act and the TNK being a whole show. Differences between Protestantism and Catholism/Eastern Orthodoxy may be sufficient to suggest greater differentiation within Christianity. Both the Jewish and Christian Bibles are popularly understood as "The Bible". WP:NPOV requires including the different perspectives rather than selecting only one that has majority support either among the editors or within the populace. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Bible is not a term currently in use in the article. The Hebrew Bible is cited in the article as a term that incorperates the common books of the TNK and the OT. If we wanted a new section removing the OT refs you'd have to dig up citations and what not for a legitimately notable new term. Peace --Home Computer 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, (and again) if you don't want to have a Hebrew Bible section that correctly identifies the TNK and the OT differences then you're going to have to create an entirely new section for both that duplicates nearly all the material (6 pages) with a paragraph or two of difference between them. Is this a task you're commited to and does the result sound like a good article? --Home Computer 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been closely involved with this, but this last remark sounds like a straw man argument. Would someone please reply explaining the structure they actually intend, so that no one can pretend to misunderstand? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We have finally moved past the issue of whether Jews use the word Bible or not, thank goodness. But there is still a fundamental problem with Home Computer's edits, and one symptom of this problem is his opening this section by claiming that "Per Andrew C, there is a concencus among him, IZAK, Slrubenstein, Lostcaesar, and Dovi, with me dessenting that the article be redivided into a Christian vs. Jewish POV on the word Bible." Our NPOV policy insists that we provide multiple points of view. I think there are many points of view concerning the Bible, not just two, not just "Jewish" and "Christisn." Nevertheless, Jews and Christians do hold distinct points of view about the contents and nature of the Bible. The simplest example of this difference is that Jews believe that the Bible is divided into three parts (with subdivisions) and that Genesis belongs in the first section called the Torah. Christians believe the Bible is divided into two parts (with subdivisions) and that Genesis belongs to the first section called the Old Testament. For Jews, there is no such thing as an Old Testament. For Jews, the words "Old Testament" and "Bible" (or the words "Old Testament" and "Tanakh") mean two completely different things. Christians may not agree with this - in other words, Christians have a different point of view. (SR)

The consensus among Andrew C, IZAK, Lostceaser, Dovi, Jayjg and I believe Jmabel is that both points of view must be represented in this article (other points of view may be included too). In contrast, it seems that Home Computer wants to erase the Jewish point of view. Home Computer seems to want to impose a Christian (or perhaps more specifically Protestant) point of view, although I think he believes that this is not a "point of view" but just the truth. Even so, that he may think it is the truth is just his point of view. Either Home Computer does not understand our NPOV policy, or he is a troll. Either way he is acting in bad faith because he admits that he is the sole person opposed to a consensus view yet he keeps changing the introduction to remove the consensus view and impose his own. If he had good faith, he would wait until there was a consensus to support his proposed introduction; he certainly would not revert Jayjg's reverts while admitting that his approach goes against the consensus. (SR)

Home Computer expresses his bad faith in a second way. It is clear that he is ignorant of Jewish views of the Bible - he finally admitted as much concerning the fact that Jews use the word "Bible" to refer to their own canonical sacred literature. It should be clear to him that Lostceaser, Jayjg, and others have done considerable research on the Bible and know what they are talking about. Yet he makes little effort to understand what they have written on this talk page, indeed, he seems to dismiss what they have to say out of hand. I am sure he will dismiss what I have just written out of hand as well, or accuse me of having something against him "personally." My primary objection is not to Home Computer as a human being, it is to the changes Home Computer made to the introduction. This is Jayjg's objection too. It is Home Computer who takes it personally, not Jayjg. I will however say this: Home Computer's stubbern refusal to listen to what better-intentioned and better-informed people say on this talk page, and his insistence on deleting text supported by what he admits is a consensus in favor of his own version which he admits is not the consensus, makes me think that he is a troll. The fact that when Jews tell him what Jews believe he resists what they tell him and insists that he knows better what Jews believe makes me wonder whether he is an anti-Semite. He is welcome to take these final remarks personally if he wishes, but I do not state them as attacks but rather my conclusion based on his insensitive and disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Home Computer (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 October 2006.

It was you who responded to Jayjg's editing by commenting on him, rathe than the content of his edits. Be that as it may, complain away if you wish. I stand by my claim that anyone who scrutinizes your behavior of the past several days will see evidence of trolling. If you think thi sis unfair I urge you to read our NPOV policy carefully and also read and consider with an open mind all the various things I, Jayjg, Lostcaeser, Jamable and others have written in response to your edits and comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Home Computer (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 October 2006.

Outside comment

I discovered this dispute through Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and in my opinion there's no need for administrator intervention. I would like to caution the editors here to observe particular sensitivity in their postings. Religious faith is a matter where people often hold deep beliefs that aren't easily swayed, and where people are often swift to take offense.

Since this appears to be primarily a content POV dispute rather than a civility issue, I'd also like to point out something that appears to have slipped past the collective POV filter. The perspective that editors refer to as Protestant both here and in the article text would be more accurately characterized as conservative Protestant. Broadly speaking, a hallmark of liberal Protestantism is skepticism toward Biblical inerrancy. At the liberal extreme, among Quakers and Unitarian Universalists, no formal doctrine exists. The most liberal Protestants may regard no definition of the Bible as canonical, and while they value the Bible in its various forms, they regard all forms of spiritual seeking as worthy of respect - hence the Bible exists on a rougly equal level with the Koran, the Rig Veda, and other sacred texts. I'm not a religious scholar, but I think it's worth pointing out what appears to be an inadvertent shared POV in this article and discussion. Regards, Durova 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a) looking in on the personal attack allegations and b) throwing in your 2 cents. I think the issue of the broad use of the term "Protestant" is definately valid. --Andrew c 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some "Original Research"

I find this whole debate very surprising, as I have never before heard anyone even suggest that what I call "the Bible" is not really "the Bible." I suppose the following is the quintessential "original research," but the vast majority of Jewish people who I have known (including myself) refer to the Jewish version of the Bible as "the Bible." This may be because the vast majority of the Jewish people I know almost always use the English, and not the Hebrew terms for things. I have even heard Jewish people, and I probably have done this myself, refer to the Jewish version of the Bible as "the Old Testament." I now realize that this is incorrect, for several reasons. However, the fact (or at least my observation) is that few Jewish people realize that there is any difference between what we call "the Bible" and what Christians call the "Old Testament." The point is that, except for those who use the Hebrew word, Jewish people quite often call our "holy book" the "Bible." As a result, both Jews and Christians have the "Bible," it is just not the same collection of writings. 6SJ7 16:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy?

The line "The documentary hypothesis posits that the Written Torah has its origins in sources who lived during the time of the monarchy or later..." has the first appearance of the term "monarchy". It doesn't say which monarchy, or give dates. It's presumably the "Hebrew Monarchy", from roughly 1000BC, but it doesn't say.--John Nagle 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey John, what an interesting surprise to find you suddenly editing this article that I've been rather intensively involved with in the past couple of days, and which you've never edited before. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there's a page I can link to called "United Monarchy." Also, is there a policy against following a nemesis around and trying to keep them in check? Jonathan Tweet 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact or Mythology?

Come on guys, the Bible is not a historical or factual document. It is not scientific to assume that there are miracles and that Moses heard some voice of god. We should be realistic instead of being a religious fanatics. The Bible is MYTHOLOGY, and no more than that. Please stop reverting my changes and adding the Christist POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.236 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View requires presenting a variety of points of view, not those an editor personally believes. When discussing key tenets and texts of a major world religion, the religion's POV is generally given first, then critical, comparative, and other perspectives are presented. In doing this, Wikipedia is not presenting "the truth", but the tenets and beliefs of the religion. Whether those tenets and beliefs are true or not is not the business of Wikipedia to say, and Wikipedia can't take a position on the issue as you are proposing. If you believe the "Bible is mythology" perspective is not adequately explained, you can add additional content in the appropriate section. Please be sure to provide sources that comply with Wikipedia's Reliable Sourcing policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not even honest here. I just checked to see what Wikipedia says about the Vedas. It says "As per hindu tradition" and when I checked the page on Quran, it says "Muslims believe." Why should the page on the Bible be an assertion and not that Christians believe? Clearly, you are a Bible-thumping fanatic!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.236 (talk • contribs)

Clearly you have yet to read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV as requested. There is a difference between saying Muslims believe and marking beliefs as mythology as you have been doing via your vandalism. Please stop trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I reworded it to suit your standards. I say that "Jews and Christians believe" and remoed claims to it being mythology. If you are fair, you have to agree to this. I shall also check pages on other religions on Wikipedia and they must not use the word mythology. BTW, I just restarted my modem and someone else is probably blocked due to your zeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.186.62 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain how your edits benefit the article? For example, you changed the line The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity to The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of texts considered sacred writings by the adherents of Judaism and Christianity. This is already gleaned from the context of the article. Prometheus^-X303- 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also don't understand how a book that largely talks about the wars and violence, child-killing stories of bronze age people can be objectively called 'sacred writings'. I am not saying that wikipedia should say these people inaccurately claim it to be 'sacred' but that it at least should not present it to be a fact. No person in his right mind would call genocide 'sacred'. Neither should wikipedia.

--80.56.36.253 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the point of view of reality? Is it less neutral than those of irrational people? Seems the policy of wikipedia is to present some things as facts if enough people are under the delusion that it is a fact eventhough reality clearly contradicts with this idea.

I mean, what can be more neutral than scientific method?

--80.56.36.253 03:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is, indeed, pretty much the policy of Wikipedia as described in our policy statement WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. Please read it. When people disagree on a subject, Wikipedia makes no claims to be able to know or determine who is being rational and who irrational, particularly on a subject such as religion. We're just encyclopedia editors here. We're not omniscient. When people disagree, we're not in a position to say who is under a delusion and who isn't. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you either have to be what wikipedia calls 'neutral' or accurate. You really choose the be inaccurate so that no one is offended?

--80.56.36.253 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your disagreements with our WP:NPOV policy in Talk:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am angered that this was even brung up... --82.44.252.243 16:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I recommend you watch "Exodus", a documentary by J. Cameron that tries to show how the Bible/Quran might be onto something. I'm not saying there are no flaws in the Bible, but merely recommending you open your mind a little. Lixy 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I follow the Bible and Jesus. For the time, I believe that the laws in the Bible were an excellent framework for a civil society and the survival of man. Leviticus is a good example. Leviticus was written by the exiled Jews in Babylonia when they were just trying to survive. Whoever wrote the parts of the Bible could adapt a portion for their own beliefs, or change it completely. The Bible wasn't "faxed from Heaven" and there it was; no. Over centuries of exile, the Jews developed Leviticus to serve their own survival purposes, something anyone should do when threatened with annihilation, they made a new Leviticus that condemned homosexuality. Jesus Christ, centuries later, said in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged." There is a definite reversal of what is believed in Leviticus, and is what I try to follow. Matthew 5:9. Shalom!Biblical follower 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the intent behind Wikipedia talk pages is to talk about the article, not ones own views. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha 07:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but tell that to everyone else that has voiced an opinion. Matthew 5:9. Shalom, Shirahadasha!Biblical follower 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read the top unsigned comment, and I am LIVID! God is not mythology! He is real and caused all the miracles that Unsigned said were not real occurances! Please sign your comments so we can call attention to you and discuss things correctly.Twobytwo 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)P.S. God is Real! The Bible is factual.

Footnote-Style Sourcing

Given the controversial nature of the article, suggest that we move from bibliography-style sourcing with all sources in a mass at the end to footnote-style sourcing, particularly for controversial sections and disputes between e.g. conservative/religious and liberal/academic scholars. Jewish and Christian perspectives, etc. Footnote-style sourcing permits sourcing individual positions and claims, identifying whose point of view it is and what evidence there is to support it. Understanding that it would be too big an undertaking to switch everything at once, I suggest that we do it for new edits and content added from here on, and particularly that we use it for content added to resolve or distiguish POVs for disputes and controversies, as they arise. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lead paragraph

This article could use a lead paragraph that summarizes the article itself. See WP:Lead Jonathan Tweet 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradict template

Could someone please explain why the contradict template has been added? --Shirahadasha 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It was added by ArnoldBeckham on Nov 10. I removed it because no reason was given for it. And I don't really expect one, considering the user's edit history. Prometheus^-X303- 14:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing words

In Advocacy of the Bible. The words are not complete. --SkyWalker 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. An IP editor removed it. Sometimes vandalism can get lost when multiple cases occur in a short period. Prometheus^-X303- 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Wikipedia should stop unregistred user from editing. Most of the vandal comes from them. --SkyWalker 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SkyWalker, only registered users should edit, then you can track the changes and hold vandals accountable. Shalom! Biblical follower 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)