Jump to content

Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bible/Archive 20) (bot
 
(62 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes |archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III |archive_age=30 |minthreadsleft=4}}
{{Talk header|search=yes }}
{{Controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Not a forum|the Bible}}
{{Not a forum|the Bible}}
Line 23: Line 23:
|currentstatus=FFAC
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Bible|class=c|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=c|importance=Top
{{WikiProject Catholicism| importance = Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|calvinism=yes|calvinism-importance=Top|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=Top}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no>
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes}}
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=Top}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Mid}}
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no>
{{WikiProject Books}}
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no>}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=Top|core-topics-work-group = yes|core-topics-work-group-importance=low|calvinism=yes|calvinism-importance=Top|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religious texts}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Top|oral-tradition=yes}}
{{WikiProject Theology|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=C|importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject Books|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Greece|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Philosophy|class=C}}
}}
}}
{{Former AFI|date= 5 June 2023|page={{PAGENAME}}|oldid2=1159089533|oldid1=1157620066}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 50: Line 45:
|archive = Talk:Bible/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Bible/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Former AFI|date= 5 June 2023|page={{PAGENAME}}|oldid2=1159089533|oldid1=1157620066}}


==Dating==
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022 ==


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.
{{Edit semi-protected|Bible|answered=yes}}
Change "Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways."
to: "Believers in the Bible consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways." [[User:Nathan Pintos|Nathan Pintos]] ([[User talk:Nathan Pintos|talk]]) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


== Possibly [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] ==
:Why remove "generally"? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:* Decline. I do not support this change and the reason is within the sentence itself: because it is seen in different ways. Everyone does not consider it divinely inspired even if they consider themselves "believers". Removing "generally" implies a universal agreement that does not exist.[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:I agree. 👍 [[User:Sheanobeano|Sheanobeano]] ([[User talk:Sheanobeano|talk]]) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


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. [[User:StarkReport|StarkReport]] ([[User talk:StarkReport|talk]]) 06:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
== Bible ==


:Criticism means opposition;
Holy Bible is the proper title. Devout religious and spiritual groups believe it is the inspired words of God Himself. [[Special:Contributions/96.18.209.11|96.18.209.11]] ([[User talk:96.18.209.11|talk]]) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
:Biblical Criticism means an academic field, it does not mean opposing the Bible. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:This has been discussed multiple times - most recently [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible/Archive_17#Little_change_of_title_request|here]]. Consensus is that it should not be changed because, as a secular institute, WP does not make judgment calls on religious scriptures. See for example [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:RNPOV]]. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
:"Devout religious and spiritual groups believe" Their [[bigot]]ry is of no interest to us. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 13:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
:[[Biblical criticism]] and [[Criticism of the Bible]] are different things. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:StarkReport|StarkReport]] ([[User talk:StarkReport|talk]]) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::True, and I am not accusing the previous editor of this in any way, shape or form. But I will caution that we as editors in our responses to any religious topic must also be careful to avoid bigotry. It is a balancing act that comes with experience, and requires all of us to learn not to allow our personal experiences or biases to color our editing - positively or negatively. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Can I carry you with me and quote you everywhere I go? I have a short essay on ''neutralizing bias'' on my user page that starts with "everyone is biased". Not everyone seems willing or able to see that. I am genuinely pleased to run across someone else who does. Thank you. Perhaps you would allow me to add this quote to my essay? [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I would sincerely be honored! Thank you. And how very true: it's impossible for any of us to avoid bias...even the act of trying to avoid it can inadvertently introduce it. But, so long as we are cognizant of that and trying, they can contribute constructively :) [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
::::: [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] you are now on my user page where I list 6 steps for neutralizing bias:
:# '''Recognize the problem'''. It helps to become aware it isn't just you. It also helps to become aware it is you. It's everyone.
:# '''Vet your sources''' {{See also|Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources}} '''Learn to recognize when an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies. They are biased.'''
:# '''Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence'''. Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
:# '''Create consistency''' by using the same standard for ''all''. Don't cut an author you like slack that you would not give to one you don't like. That too is bias.
:# '''Consensus''' hinders bias. Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it.
:# Most importantly, '''Be wary of overconfidence.''' "The more certain you are about an opinion, the more likely you are to employ confirmation bias... Sometimes the best time to expose yourself to opposing views is when you are most certain you already have all the information you need". [https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/human-resources/2017/05/tips-for-overcoming-and-neutralizing-your.html]
::::: And then, there you are. Thank you for being an example of what's best on WP. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 05:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course everyone is biased. That is a given. The day that nobody is biased anymore would be the day there are 0 edits on wikipedia. [[User talk:Lacessori|<span style="background:#000000;color:#d1edd5;border-radius:3px;">&nbsp;'''Latin Beau'''&nbsp;</span>]] 06:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thank you [[User talk:Lacessori|<span style="background:#000000;color:#d1edd5;border-radius:3px;">&nbsp;'''Latin Beau'''&nbsp;</span>]] you are so right, but it isn't uncommon for it to be a very difficult thing to see in one's self. We think what we think because we think it's right - if we weren't right, we would think something else! {{Smiley}} I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


== Edit request (to clarify): Septuagint section ==
::::::"Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it." Not a good advice on Wikipedia. Quite frequently, good-faith editors mess up an article's structure and sources. The only option is to revert the changes and talk to them. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps should be amended to state "...based on content" or something of that nature. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::: [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] It's the reason for reverting that differentiates those, but perhaps you're right and that should be clarified. "Never revert an otherwise well sourced, good faith, valid edit just because it is contrary to your personal views". That's WP policy and should be upheld.[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:It should be called "Holy Bible." Respect Christians. [[User:Sheanobeano|Sheanobeano]] ([[User talk:Sheanobeano|talk]]) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:: "Respect Christians." Respect is earned, and I doubt they have earned it. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 03:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


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?)
== New Testament apocrypha? ==


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." [[Special:Contributions/84.9.116.66|84.9.116.66]] ([[User talk:84.9.116.66|talk]]) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
An editor recently copied a large section of [[New Testament apocrypha]] (with some edits) to this article. I question whether that is helpful: not just because of the duplication, but because the article is already bordering on being too long, and because (in my opinion) a "Bible" article ought to be limited to content which was, or is, part of at least one major extant group's Bible. Additionally, it was added under "Content and Themes" which appears incorrect, since - with a couple small exceptions - none of the mentioned works are or were ever considered part of any canon. Since [[New Testament apocrypha]] is also already linked to in the New Testament history section, and since this section already adequately summarizes NT apocryphal history, I suggest that the newly added section should be scrapped entirely, saving for mention of books such as 3 Corinthians or 1/2 Clement (which are included in some Bibles) in the Canon variations section. Thoughts? [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 04:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


:Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), remember? that's why it says "In modern Judaism" --[[User:Rafaelosornio|Rafaelosornio]] ([[User talk:Rafaelosornio|talk]]) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with (mostly) removal since it's not ''in'' what I commonly understand as "Bible" though it's certainly bible adjacent. [[Bible#New_Testament_2]] links to New Testament apocrypha and has some content on it, that seems [[WP:PROPORTION]]ate for ''this'' article. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[Special:Contributions/2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0|2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0]] ([[User talk:2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0|talk]]) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request (wrong word; + link): Final form section ==
::It's incredible that nothing has been done about it, this section keeps large proportions of the main article "New Testament apocrypha", almost half of this article is here.[[User:Rafaelosornio|Rafaelosornio]] ([[User talk:Rafaelosornio|talk]]) 03:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I was waiting on additional people to reply, and haven’t had enough time to edit it back out. You are welcome to. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 13:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


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)".
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023 ==


And I suggest the term being glossed, "recension", should be a link (to the existing article on that).
{{Edit semi-protected|Bible|answered=yes}}
this entire paragraph is a lie and should be deleted. "New Testament books already had considerable authority in the late first and early second centuries.[164] Even in its formative period, most of the books of the NT that were seen as scripture were already agreed upon. Linguistics scholar Stanley E. Porter says "evidence from the apocryphal non-Gospel literature is the same as that for the apocryphal Gospels – in other words, that the text of the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries".[165] By the time the fourth century Fathers were approving the "canon", they were doing little more than codifying what was already universally accepted.[166]" [[User:Jeffohms|Jeffohms]] ([[User talk:Jeffohms|talk]]) 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


So I'm requesting for the sentence to read as follows (in Wikitext):
:According to ref given in the article, [[Stanley E. Porter]] did say that. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


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.{{sfn|Fitzmeyer|1992|p=41}} [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:CE01:2601:1C86:1EFE:2CA4:102D|2A00:23C4:CE01:2601:1C86:1EFE:2CA4:102D]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:CE01:2601:1C86:1EFE:2CA4:102D|talk]]) 10:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
== Page views ==
{{reftalk}}


== Like... Who wrote it ==
reduced drastically in April 2022, d
does anyone have any idea what happened? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/langviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2022-08-25&end=2023-08-23&page=Bible&sort=views&direction=1&view=chart&page=Bible [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


Deep in the history, almost every religion was written by someone, one question, who wrote the Bible? -_- [[Special:Contributions/176.98.71.70|176.98.71.70]] ([[User talk:176.98.71.70|talk]]) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing drastic seems to have happened to the article near those dates, my guess would be that Google stopped offering Wikipedia as the top result. As to why Google stopped doing so only Google would know. the drop actually happened in November, you can see this if [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/langviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2022-11-15&end=2022-11-19&sort=views&direction=1&view=chart&page=Bibleyou narrow the date range]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
::This might be related: https://theconversation.com/2022-wasnt-the-year-of-cleopatra-so-why-was-she-the-most-viewed-page-on-wikipedia-197350 [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


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


== first line ==
A paragraph in the "Development and history" section reads: "The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period."
I'm no expert in the matter but as soon as I read this I thought this is wrong. I checked the Wikipedia article on paleo-Hebrew and it does not mention cuneiform nor pictographs. [[Special:Contributions/92.41.50.173|92.41.50.173]] ([[User talk:92.41.50.173|talk]]) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


should "to a certain degree" ... is held sacred etc etc be "to varying degrees". It ''is '' held sacred in Christianity and Judaism, inter alia. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959|2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959|talk]]) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023 ==


== Bible Sales Increase ==
{{Edit semi-protected|Bible|answered=yes}}
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. [[User:Yumyam|Yumyam]] ([[User talk:Yumyam|talk]]) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


Bible sales in the U.S. are up 30% in 2024 vs. 2023. One theologian suggests this is due to an aging Gen Z.
== The Bible ==


“They are now well into young adulthood – with the oldest past college age and youngest passing puberty. Rather than the internet-driven popular culture they have been drowning in, I wouldn’t be surprised if many are beginning to look for real-life answers now they are faced with social and career decisions,” Tommy Doughty said. “With loneliness and dislocation prevalent, especially in our socially-deprived youth, there is no wonder many would turn to renewed attempts at spiritual awakening.” [https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/]https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/
The '''Bible''' (from [[Koine Greek]] τὰ βιβλία, ''tà biblía'', 'the books') is a collection of [[Religious text|religious texts]] or scriptures, some, all, or a variant of which, are held to be [[Sacredness|sacred]] in [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Samaritanism]], [[Islam]], [[Baha'i Faith|Baha'i'ism]] and [[Abrahamic religions|many other religions]]. The Bible is an [[anthology]], a compilation of texts of a variety of forms, [[Biblical languages|originally written]] in [[Biblical Hebrew|Hebrew]], [[Aramaic]], and [[Koine Greek]]. These texts include instructions, stories, poetry, and prophecies, and other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a [[biblical canon]]. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a [[Biblical inspiration|product of divine inspiration]], but the way they understand what that means and [[Biblical hermeneutics|interpret the text]] varies.


Anecdotal stories confirm people in their 20s and 30s are finding the Bible is connecting with them on a deeper level.


Cely Vazquez, a former reality show contestant and online influencer, documented her experience buying her first Bible at a Barnes and Noble on TikTok. Expressing her nervousness about the purchase, she said, "I have butterflies." In the video, Vazquez declared, "I have never purchased my own Bible or studied it or read it, and now, at 28 years old, I've been finding myself having this deeper craving for really understanding what it means to walk with God -- and I think that definitely starts with reading and studying the Bible," as The Washington Times reported. [https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788]https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788 [[User:Richronald|Richronald]] ([[User talk:Richronald|talk]]) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
NaS (2023) [[User:Yumyam|Yumyam]] ([[User talk:Yumyam|talk]]) 14:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:I am somewhat surprised. I had a [[bowdlerized]] children's illustrated bible as a child, and I had access to hardcover translations of the Bible as a teenager. Most of my [[atheistic]] beliefs derive from many hours of bible study, and from comparisons with other [[mythological]] material. Being 28-years-old at one's introduction to the reading material seems way too old in my eyes. What reading material do American children typically use? [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 12:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Any response to that question would be an overgeneralization. In the immortal words of Cedric Neal: "You gotta start somewhere". I know many who came to Christianity in their 30s, 40s or later, after a lifetime of atheism or agnosticism. Incidentally, my Christian beliefs derive from many hours of comparing the Bible to other religions' holy texts, including at university, and Christianity to other religious (and atheistic) systems. So, to each their own. In short, I do not find this surprising. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Christian Canon ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023 ==


Which article explains specifically about the sacred books of the Christian religion?
{{Edit semi-protected|Bible|answered=yes}}
It might include older canons (such as Tanakh), and it might be included in newer canons. But there's supposed to be an article that's specific about Old Testament and New Testament at once.
Please change “includes instructions” to sometimes includes instructions. With all the antisemitism at the moment it pays for people researching to have understanding. The jewish “bibles” as you call them do not contain instructions, they are purely history books of ancestors. The mishkan t’filah shows instructons for proggressive judeans and there are many factions each with their own prayer/instruction book. [[User:Correction9|Correction9]] ([[User talk:Correction9|talk]]) 23:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
[[User:הראש|הראש]] ([[User talk:הראש|talk]]) 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:There are no instructions in Leviticus? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:06, 24 December 2024

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.

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]

Bible Sales Increase

[edit]

Bible sales in the U.S. are up 30% in 2024 vs. 2023. One theologian suggests this is due to an aging Gen Z.

“They are now well into young adulthood – with the oldest past college age and youngest passing puberty. Rather than the internet-driven popular culture they have been drowning in, I wouldn’t be surprised if many are beginning to look for real-life answers now they are faced with social and career decisions,” Tommy Doughty said. “With loneliness and dislocation prevalent, especially in our socially-deprived youth, there is no wonder many would turn to renewed attempts at spiritual awakening.” [1]https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/

Anecdotal stories confirm people in their 20s and 30s are finding the Bible is connecting with them on a deeper level.

Cely Vazquez, a former reality show contestant and online influencer, documented her experience buying her first Bible at a Barnes and Noble on TikTok. Expressing her nervousness about the purchase, she said, "I have butterflies." In the video, Vazquez declared, "I have never purchased my own Bible or studied it or read it, and now, at 28 years old, I've been finding myself having this deeper craving for really understanding what it means to walk with God -- and I think that definitely starts with reading and studying the Bible," as The Washington Times reported. [2]https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788 Richronald (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat surprised. I had a bowdlerized children's illustrated bible as a child, and I had access to hardcover translations of the Bible as a teenager. Most of my atheistic beliefs derive from many hours of bible study, and from comparisons with other mythological material. Being 28-years-old at one's introduction to the reading material seems way too old in my eyes. What reading material do American children typically use? Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any response to that question would be an overgeneralization. In the immortal words of Cedric Neal: "You gotta start somewhere". I know many who came to Christianity in their 30s, 40s or later, after a lifetime of atheism or agnosticism. Incidentally, my Christian beliefs derive from many hours of comparing the Bible to other religions' holy texts, including at university, and Christianity to other religious (and atheistic) systems. So, to each their own. In short, I do not find this surprising. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Canon

[edit]

Which article explains specifically about the sacred books of the Christian religion? It might include older canons (such as Tanakh), and it might be included in newer canons. But there's supposed to be an article that's specific about Old Testament and New Testament at once. הראש (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]