Talk:Bible

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

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." Nathan Pintos (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why remove "generally"? Levivich (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. 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.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. 👍 Sheanobeano (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dating

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.

Bible

Holy Bible is the proper title. Devout religious and spiritual groups believe it is the inspired words of God Himself. 96.18.209.11 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times - most recently [[1]]. 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. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Devout religious and spiritual groups believe" Their bigotry is of no interest to us. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2023 (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. 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? 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 :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Jtrevor99 you are now on my user page where I list 6 steps for neutralizing bias:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence. Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
4. 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.
5. Consensus hinders bias. Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it.
6. 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". [2]

And then, there you are. Thank you for being an example of what's best on WP. 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.  Latin Beau  06:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you  Latin Beau  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! 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. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"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. Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps should be amended to state "...based on content" or something of that nature. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It should be called "Holy Bible." Respect Christians. Sheanobeano (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Respect Christians." Respect is earned, and I doubt they have earned it. Dimadick (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

New Testament apocrypha?

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? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2023 (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:PROPORTIONate for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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.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. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

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]" Jeffohms (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

According to ref given in the article, Stanley E. Porter did say that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Page views

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 fgnievinski (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (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 narrow the date range. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 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 fgnievinski (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Paleo-Hebrew wrongly identified as a cuneiform language.

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. 92.41.50.173 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bible

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, 'the books') is a collection of religious texts or scriptures, some, all, or a variant of which, are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, Baha'i'ism and many other religions. The Bible is an anthology, a compilation of texts of a variety of forms, originally written in 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 product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

NaS (2023) Yumyam (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

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. Correction9 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no instructions in Leviticus? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)