Talk:Bible/Archive 12

Introduction Re-address
It appears to be POV and other issues in the introduction. It appears a bit of POV has crept in, and it is being over specific on particular topics, all without addressing the topics covered in the article. Let look to find consensus on this.
 * In a day or so, I will remove statements that are both redundant to the first paragraph, and way over-specific for an introduction (e.g., the extrenous list of "apocrypha" books).
 * After that, I hope to have help in actually making the introduction represent what is actually within this article.
 * Let's discuss a strategy to keep the introduction from getting tagged by passers-by that want their specific version of the bible represented in the introduction. People tend to forget that introductions are overviews, I think.  Right now, the introduction is practically its own article unrelated to the rest of the article.  One possibility is to move the introduction under a heading such as "Brief Introduction". Thoughts? --Fcsuper (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a serious deficiency in the opening of this article. There should be a non-POV (i.e. Secular) description of what the bible is and a brief scientific comment about its origins.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Hontogiachiben, I agree. Do you have sources and suggestions? —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Variations in Bible are not just Jewish
"Among some Christian traditions, the Bible includes additional Jewish books that were not accepted into the Tanakh." I propose not attributing variations in the bible to just Christians. Many groups use the Christian bible, not all are considered "Christian" in all contexts. It is better not to make such a specific claim. My second concern is that variations in the bible are not just related to differences between Tanakh and OT. --Fcsuper (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Specificity of Traditions
The list of specific books within the introduction is inappropriate. A simple statement that there are variations is more appropriate, as long as the specific variations are covered elsewhere, which the are in other article which can be referenced. If need be, perhaps create a section of the Bible article that addresses this topic. --Fcsuper (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The introduction also incorrectly states that the Orthodox canon is made up of the books of the Septuagint to which the earliest Greek translation of the Bible has been added. In fact, the Septuagint simply is the earliest Greek translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.159.58 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs to talk about the article, not be its own article
Introduction needs to talk about the article, not be its own article. Right now, it acts as its own article, almost completely regardless to the main article. Any suggestions on how we can improve this? --Fcsuper (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Canon
I think the word 'canon', as used in the introduction, should be defined or linked to Wiktionary or something. Being a key word in the intro of a basic subject like this, readers will need to easily access a definition if they are to get the best out of the article and I don't think the average reader neccesarily understands it properly. Even if they have some idea that it means 'accepted', it would be better if they were guided to the idea that the list of 'canon' books was officially settled by certain people at a point in time and perhaps that not everyone's idea of 'canon' is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Canonical" is wikilinked in the previous sentence to Biblical canon. That should be sufficient, unless you think the link should be switched to where it actually says "canon" rather than canonical. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not show clearly when first canon or first Bible was established.

Redirect - Catholic Bible
On New Page Patrol earlier today, I intercepted a poorly written article titled Catholic Bible. Since the article did not add anything that is not already covered here, I redirected it here. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bible on a pinhead
I know that Trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia, but perhaps this recent invention can be incorporated somewhere in the Bible article: Bible put on a pinhead-size chip. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for the people editing the Nanotechnology article to mention it in theirs first. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But its not the bible on a pinhead. Its just the Torah on a pinhead. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

unprotection
editprotected

Either a template notifying the users of the pages protection should be added or the protection removed (Note the protector's edit summary in the protection log). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the tag. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I unprotected the article. Please don't use a template as a section title; it makes it impossible to click the section edit link. &mdash; Carl (CBM • talk) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See also - Amusing translations?
Could we link to the Lolcatbible somewhere under the 'See Also' section? Pappy uk (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I do not see that this link has its place in the Bible article. Maybe in a Wikipedia in kitty pidgin. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This effort is already mentioned in the Lolcat article. That's where your link belongs. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm...Okay. (Ps, it could be related to the bible article because it's a pointless translation.)Pappy uk (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello anyone. Is there any way how I can create a seperate article describing a particular Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidamos (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Swordwarrior.net
Adding SwordBible Software. This one was inserted by an anon earlier today. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do like this one. However, I don't like setting a precedent for allowing sites aimed at having you dl programs. And I think that ELs which are added w/o discussion, as the note asks, should be deleted with prejudice. Ignoring the note indicates some measure of bad faith, to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think this one adds anything to what we already have. As for ignoring the note, in this case I doubt that it was anything but that: the anon inserted that link near the top of the list, where the note was located, and that constitutes a form of spamming regardless of a note's presence. But we might get into a situation where someone simply did not see the note, and who additionally is not related in any way with the site being linked to. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the note isn't already at the bottom as well as the top of the ELs, I'll add it soon as I post this. That should help cut down on inadvertent breaking of the note. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok yeah there should be no way someone can miss the note now. Its there four times, so I will continue deleting ELs that pop up w/o discussion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

scripture.org.ua
Please, add the link scripture.org.ua. More then 25 different Bible translations, Torah, Tanah etc... Search in the text. By using this site you can create hiper-links of verses or chapters. Site not contains advertising.
 * That really cool, I think we should link all site that not contains advertising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.225.222 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

vbvbc.org
I suggest to ad Verse by Verse Bible Commentary (vbvbc.org) because it's unique in it's kind. Users can give a Bible Commentary on every single Bible verse. Note: there is one small block of ads on this page.
 * This is not exactly a scholarly commentary, but it is worth looking into. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not exactly scholarly, but being scholarly or not isn't the criterion for linking or not. Because the commentaries are user generated content I tested if the site was moderated. A meaningless spam-like message was removed after a few hours. I'll ad the link in a moment. Of course you can delete it if you find a good reason for it. --MisterWing (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The recommendation against user generated content sites isn't because of the fear readers will see spam - it's because user generated commentary isn't particularly scholarly. Looking for the best sites for readers means directing them towards recognised experts not commentary of the general public. This is an encyclopedia - it's supposed to be pretty elitist in terms of the views it presents.  -- SiobhanHansa 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite subjective to say that user generated content doesn't fit into the category of "best sites for readers". If we get rid of the vbvbc.org site based on this criterion, than we also have to get rid of the Bible Wiki's. --MisterWing (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are running up against our neutral point of view policy. Our policies are basically to present the views of recognised experts.  There is a degree of subjective judgment involved in deciding who is a recognised authority and what views hold most weight; good editors try to be as neutral as possible in doing that.  But user generated content is so far at the wrong end of the continuum that a wide consensus against its use has evolved.  That consensus is intended to stop the introduction of novel interpretations or popular but false ideas.  It should also ensure we focus attention on the recognized views as our neutrality policy requires.  For the general public's opinions on things people should use Google - not Wikipedia.  On the open wikis issue - they are rarely appropriate but when they are large, stable and present information that is in keeping with well regarded points of view they may be acceptable.  Each link needs looking at separately.  -- SiobhanHansa 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to delete http://bible.tmtm.com & http://wikible.org  under Wikis because these sites are not functioning anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterWing (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bible.tmtm.com will be removed as a non-workable site. Wikible.org states that it will be back online shortly, so we should wait. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikible.org doesn't seem to meet the expectations of the external links guidelines either (see links to avoid #12)- In looking at the last 500 recent changes in the last 30 days it shows only 56 edits by two named editors and one IP and goes back only as far as July 25th.  That's hardly the "substantial number of editors" recommended. And its current main page announcement that "Wikible.org is currently in a transition stage, and we are thinking through our goals." along with the recent outage make its stability less than ideal too. -- SiobhanHansa 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the neutral point of view article, but it doesn't mention that the same guideline counts for links. If this guideline also applies to links, than we have to remove the two remaining wiki's also. I can't see they present the views of "recognised experts". --MisterWing (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not worth mentioning anywhere in Wikipedia. Removing right away. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie - who is an administrator - deleted the link to http://www.vbvbc.org and wrote: "there is no consensus to add this; please do not add it again without establishing a consensus for its inclusion". Of course I respect this, but I like to hear the opinion of others. --MisterWing (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

biblestudywiki.com
I Removed biblestudywiki.com because all hyperlinks lead to "NOT FOUND The requested URL /cgi-bin/wiki.php was not found on this server" pages --MisterWing (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue letter bible + wiki links
I removed the blue letter bible because the link takes you to site there says you can order bibles, etc. Furthermore, the wikichristian link goes to a website about another wiki page altogether, and has no direct relation to the bible as a topic itself but largely on chritianity, and furthermore it is another wiki. Hardly a reliable source of information for citations. Wikipedia does not advertise.

Accessing a bible
A number of sites are available to help a person to gain access to a bible for free or to read bible studies online. One such site is AD Books which is a charity which is constantly developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittlep (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this meets EL guidelines. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Links
I removed two of the online Bible links for having objectionable amounts of advertising (especially considering that there are scores of online versions that don't have advertising). As far as needing replacements, I did come across this "gateway" link that links to numerous versions (in English and other languages). It doesn't have any ads, though there is a "purchase a bible" link on the main page. Thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problems with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead
The lead should be longer than this. Maybe twice as long. But certainly longer than it is given the length of the article proper. Something to think about when giving it an A-class rating, too. Richard001 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was considerably longer in early December last year, but was rather poorly written. I cut it down to what it is now, and there was consensus for it. Take a look at the "Pendulum swings" discussion above to see discussion on it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Violence in Bible
There is plenty of violence in Bible, like the planning of invasion of Canaan land. And the revelations which prophecies a one world kingdom of Israel to rule the land after a massive bloodbath never seen before.

I suggest doing research in this violence issue and adding a category to for it in the bible page or make a new page. ASEOR2 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * commenting deletion: soapbox doesn't have anything to do with the violence present in the bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment on the deletion: there is no religious debates on this issue. There is violence in the bible and it should put under a section or make a new page. Religious debate doesn't remove the violence in the bible that why it's not religious debate. Water is liquid, there is violence in the bible. No debate needed. The violence should be analyzed and write a section about it.ASEOR2 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is better off without any discussion on that. End of discussion. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

End of discussion? But there is still violence in the bible even without discussion. So let's just analyze the violence and make a section or page out of it. ASEOR2 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like he said, the article is better off without any duscussion on that.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? How? By suppressing information?ASEOR2 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, there is a clear consensus that this information should be kept out of the article. Unless you'd like to call an admin, this discusion is over.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK another page can be made. And im not against inviting an admin to view the issue. Either way, there will be an article about violence in the bible.ASEOR2 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the WP:FIRST before you do.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree with RC and Blanchardb. I don't think it's necessary in the article. If you want, invite an admin. That would help resolve this issue.  Burner 0718  18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it can't be denied that violence plays a huge role especially in the old testament but also in the new testament.ASEOR2 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not venues for original research; if ASEOR2 want to "analyze" something she is free to do so, just not at Wikipedia (see WP:NOR). Human beings are violent and violence has occured in the historical record of every nation. No Biblical scholar denies this, I know of no one who denies this. But this article is meant to introduce people to the notable scholarship on the bible and I do not know of any historians or Biblical scholars who have made "violence in the Bible" a particular object of interest. It would be like having an article on "violence in the US." No, we actually wouldn't do that because it is a broad topic that mixes up very different fields of scholarship - we might have one article on crime in the US, another on the US Civil War, and another one on Slavery, and one on the Genocide Against the indians ... and in none of these would we editors be analyzing anything; we would be summarizing accounts of notable scholarly research and debates. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A."She"? How do you know? B. Yes he or she can analyze the info if the want; but don't add it to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-0722 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Well did you knew Augustine_of_Hippo is one of the great thinkers of roman catholic church who had a scholar of pre-emptive war, if the living conditions of people can be be made better then the Christian crusade was justified. Pre-emptive war is not new to church and is today included in the doctrines of USA and Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment has nothing to do with our current discussion. Also, you may analyze the info; but do not post it, as it will be marked as original research and removed. BTW, WP is not a soapbox. Thank you and That's the way it is.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is intended for scholarly research. and the presentation of notable points of view. Lots of people have opinions about the Bible, religion, etc., but Wikipedia isn't the place for editors' own arguments. See our No Original Research policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not to put my own arguments, that why the discussion I guess. I yet haven't provided material for the violence in bible section. If I will it will not be my OR. ASEOR2 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus for this information to be kept out of the article. Please do not add it, as it will be most likely removed. Thank you.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But violence is a stating part of the bible. It shouldn't be left without mention. Let's try to come up with as neutral and informative article in all terms of Wikipedia about this issue. New category in bible page or a new page.ASEOR2 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't add unless there is a clear consensus to add. I this case, there isn't a consensus to add, therefore, we don't add. Aloha.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an article whose scope includes discussion of violence in the Bible, so you can rest assured that it is discussed. But I'm not going to name that article here, because I don't want to ease the way of those editors who would wish to turn it into a soapbox. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I have got a stupid idea about how to find this easly!!! Read It! Duh!! :-) 76.0.82.224 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

✅ I have added a link to Murder in the Bible in the topics section. This seems to be the standard way of addressing spin-off topics and the more general case of Violence should be addressed in the same way as and when we have a separate article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish bible?
The bible is not a Jewish text. The Jewish religious book is the Torah. I am going to hide the incorrect text. This way it can easily be put back if I am wrong. Thanks, George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help and assistance 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article explains the relationship between the Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible. As explained on the disambiguation pages the most common use of 'Bible' is to refere to both versions. To remove the refrence to the Jewish bibe would result in having to rewrite the whole article - and a specific article on the Jewish version is held elswhere  johnmark†  22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs)
 * You know, I don't think I will ever understand why it upsets some (I know - not all!!!) Christians so much that Jews use the word "Bible" differently from them. It isn't like Jews are trying to force Christians to be Jewish (indeed, for almost 1500 years it was the other way around!).  As faras most Jews are concerned, Christians can go about being Christian - Jews just want to stay being Jewish.  Why does this so get under some people's skin?  I really wish I understood it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The bible is a book [indeed, "bible" simply means "book"]. The parts called the Torah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, Psalms, and the Deuteronomic History, etc., are Israelite (and possibly Egyptian and Sumerian) texts. The parts called Chronicles (including Ezra-Nehemiah), Esther, Maccabees, etc., are Jewish (and possibly Persian). The parts called Tobit, Daniel, etc. are of also of Jewish origin (possibly of hellenic influence). The parts called Mark, Matthew, Luke, Thomas, Romans, Corinthians, Philemon, etc. are of Christian origin. The parts called John, Ephesians, Timothy, Titus, Jude, are, though sometimes thought more dubious, still Christian. Not all of these parts are in all of the bibles; but that doesn't mean that you can say that the bible definitely isn't Jewish, or definitely isn't Christian, for Jewish bibles contain Jewish elements, and Christian bibles contain Christian elements. Clinkophonist (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle with those comments. In that view, the introduction does not make such a distinction.  It says Xtians use the Jewish portion.  This is not 100% accurate, and should be rewrote to not present this POV.  The Xtian bible's old testiment is based on the tanakh, but it is not the tanakn "just in a different order".  The presentation that the OT and the tanakn are the same is technically a false statement.  There are differences that have nothing to due with the content Tanakn.   I tried fixing this, but was reverted.  The issue still needs to be addressed. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro has unparallel (and arguable) detail
As the intro stands right now (2008 Mar 1) it reads in part: "The Christian version of the Bible includes books of the Tanakh, but includes additional books and reorganizes them into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.[2]" My problem is with the last fact - I don't think the New Testament was written in Greek, not all of it. Paul spoke and wrote fluent Greek; Matthew, John, Peter, et al were Jews and probably wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. The best old manuscripts we have of these texts are indeed written in Greek but they are by no means the originals, they are some distance from the originals. I think it's very likely that part of the NT was translated into Greek previous to our earliest manuscripts we now have. But why have this info here at all? There's no mention of what language the OT was written in (just as complex a matter). Better I think to subjugate the language question to lower down in the article. Friendly Person (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what's there is given in the reference. Also, it doesn't say that all the NT was originally written in Greek, merely that most of it is. However, I'm not sure that its absolutely necessary for the lead, so I'm not terribly against ending the sentence at "of the New Testament." Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Format
Having the books of the Tanakh & New Testament displayed in clear lists, while the deuterocanonical books are buried in continuous prose, is anti-Catholic bias. 11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New link to www.bibleserver.com
The web page www.bibleserver.com is in my opinion the best source for an online bible, because the reader can choose from a large number of different translations (in many languages) and easily navigate through the books. If you think so, too, please add it to the list! I think it should be on top of it. ;-)


 * Though you can use most of it without registering, to use the full extent of its content you do have to register. In addition to that, even if it is added, it needs to go at the bottom of the list. There's a reason we discourage adding links to the top. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

fact vs. fiction
shouldn't it be noted in the first few lines that the bible is fiction, not fact; like every other book on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.75.140 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would obviously be POV. It would also be false: the Bible certainly contains some accurate history, even though people can and do dispute how much.  Tb (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also be anachronistic and thus bad history. Today, librarians and book-sellers distinguish between fiction and non-fiction.  In fact, we now that there are lots of problems with dividing books this way, but in any case people certainly did not always classify texts this way.  One thing that ancient historians try to figure out is how the people who wrote and first read the Bible classified the different kinds of texts they read, and where the Bible fit in.  Did Plato consider his Republic "fiction" or "non-fiction?"  I doubt Plato thought in those terms.  And even so, one could make a reasonable claim to classify that book under either one of these two categories. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm an atheist, and as such the Bible is mostly fiction as far as I am concerned. Moreover, I think claiming the Bible is fact is far more POV than claiming it as fiction. Fact denotes proof, and let's face it, the the Bible is pretty ropey on that point. I DO however believe that a fiction tag is fair. It's fiction for me and MANY other atheists, no matter how militantly the fundamentalists protest. However, as a compromise, I think myth is as a good a word as any. Is Zeus fact or fiction? If neither, (and where's the proof for or against?) then perhaps myth. Jesus is certainly as mythical to me as any other god. --Filipek (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no history section?
The article does not contain a section which states the history of the formation of the modern day Bible (e.g. When the early church officially decided the original biblical canon; when the canon was abridged durihg the Protestant Reformation). It just basically explains what is in the different versions of the Bible, but not when these versions were decided on.--24.173.26.210 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, such a section would be a repetition of what's already in the article, in the Canonization section — and in several articles this one links to. See Development of the Old Testament canon and Development of the New Testament canon. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 00:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Criticism of the Bible
Under the "Biblical criticism" section, there is a definition of "Biblical criticism", but no definition of "Criticism of the Bible". I propose that Criticism of the Bible be defined as criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. Any comments? PrayExtraHard (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only as a short disambiguation sentence, under the main template. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is what it would look like: (start of proposed change)

(header) Biblical criticism (end header)
 * Main articles: Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible.

Biblical criticism refers to the investigation of the Bible as a text, and addresses questions such as authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention.

Criticism of the Bible are criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance.

(end of proposed change) PrayExtraHard (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... the wording is awkward, but the idea is something I can approve. Also, I would not make separate paragraphs, and I would begin with "It is not the same as Criticism of the Bible, which is..." --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pretty skeptical about any section criticizing the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. When it comes to information, this is precisely what is at stake in the section on Biblical Criticism.  When it comes to ethnical guidance ... well, why would any one think that a book written a few thousand years ago be directly applicable to situations today?  If we had a section on criticisms of Plato's Republic or Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, I think it would be deleted as anachronistic.  Now, i well understant that the issue concerning the bible is not anachronistic because there are organized religions that claim to draw from the bible lessons for ethical behavior.  And here is my point: criticisms of such use of the bible is really criticism of such religions (Judaism, Christianity, whatever).  I mean, honestly, do any non-Jews and non-Christians read the Bible for ethical guidance, or even care? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's why I will accept no more than a short disambiguation. Come to think of it, "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the main template. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Made the suggested change.  Repentance  14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional Jewish Books?
As the article stands now, in the opening paragraph we find "Among some Christian traditions, the Bible includes additional Jewish books that were not accepted into the Tanakh." I'm a bit uneasy about the phrase "additional Jewish books". The deuterocanonical books this speaks of are, according to some Jews, later additions made by ancient Christians around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. They point to the fact that these books (at least some, I'm not sure about each and every one) exist only written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, and that no known Jewish community has ever accepted them in any way.

Could we rephrase this to something like, "Among some Christian traditions, the Bible includes additional books which, though coming before the New Testament books, are not accepted by Judaism." I think this might be a more neutral way of putting this. Fontwords (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fontword, I agree. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of these books were in Hebrew and were used by Jews e.g. Jubilees and Enoch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AylesburyDuck (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally written in Greek?
In the third paragraph of this article, we find the statement: "The Christian Bible includes the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, which were originally written in Greek...".

While most students of the Bible believe it almost certain that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, there are those who disagree. For example, there are those who produced the Bible Version "The Scriptures '08". They believe that the Bible was originally written in a Semitic language and later translated into Greek.

Especially strong is this belief in regard to Matthew. Many scholars believe it was written in Aramaic, and so perhaps it would be best to change "which were originally written in Greek", to "generally agreed to come from Greek," or something of that nature.Fontwords (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you have a source, you are welcome to make that change. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comment, perhaps the wording can be changed to "whose oldest known versions are written in Greek"?

Meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16
I'm doing research for a book I'm planning on writing which is going to focus on the validity of the belief that the Old Testament is still valid for use as doctrine for today's Christianity. The only verse I'm aware of in the new testament which supposedly asserts that the Old Testament is still valid is 2 Timothy 3:16, which states (in the New International Version): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Does this verse refer specifically to the Jewish Canon or the Christian cannon at the time (which included the additional Old Tesament books now found in the Catholic Bible)? And do the words "god-breathed" which also translate I believe as "divinely inspired" assert that the text refer to is infallable or valid in the present era (whenever that is), or is the meaning more vague. If someone could help me with this research, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACO-13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are basically two ways to translate that verse: "all scripture is inspired, and is profitable" or "every scripture that is inspired is also profitable". The first assumes a specific canon for "scripture" but doesn't tell you what that assumption is.  The second would account for non-canonical books that are not inspired.  Both, ultimately, beg the question: which books are inspired?  All Paul is saying, if anything, is that if something is inspired, then it's profitable for teaching, etc.  I can offer no theological opinion, of course.  But I can at least offer you this logical observation: "scripture" is undefined.  And now for one more historical observation: there are a LOT of books that didn't make it into the Septuagint.  In general, the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Canon in it's Septuagint translation.  There are no indications of the Aprocryphal books being cited as "scripture."  Jesus does cite both the Torah and Psalms as "scripture" and even adds for a citation of the Psalms that "it cannot be broken."  His reference on the Sermon on the Mount to the Law and Prophets can reasonably be see as most or all of the Hebrew canon, and to this he says that not one stroke can pass away (Matthew 5:17).  Be careful, however, because Peter in one place seems to equate Paul's writings as scripture.  Again, I can offer no conclusions or theology here.  All I can offer are some caveats for your search.  I doubt you'll be able to nail anything down for anyone further than they already wish to go.Tim (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What that verse means depends upon your theological bias. BTW, the current Catholic Canon excludes books that were used by Early Christians, and are still part of the Orthodox Christian Canon.jonathon (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
The Bible is a non-copyrighted book, should we include this in the article? Ellomate (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The copyright status of the Bible depends upon which version in which language by which translator/editor one is referring to.jonathon (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way to incorporate that information into the article in a way that makes it sound pertinent. If Wikipedia is to mention the copyright status of the Bible, it should be done by mentioning the status of each individual translation, and only in articles about those individual translations.


 * But before you start doing that, as yourself, how do I incorporate that information in the article about the KJV or the one about the NIV?, and why would people care? --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get all hasty, I was just proposing it. I had no intentions on editing it in the first place. Please read the posts before you start making assumations. Ellomate (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, see this. Ellomate (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first paragraph of this article has the sentence:

The Christian Bible includes the same books as the Tanakh (referred to in this context as the Old Testament), but in a different order, together with specifically Christian books collectively called the New Testament.

I propose that we change "but in a different order" to "but usually in a different order." There are groups who hold to the same Jewish order and Torah, Nebiim, Kethuvim divisions. And in fact, there is some disagreement within the Jewish community as to the books of the Kethuvim. Although the Orthodox generally hold one order, some, such as the Rabbis of Mechon Mamre, hold to a different one. Fontwords (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. The first issue of a major French translation had the OT books in the Jewish order. I know of no scholar that finds a theological issue in book order. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

History Section
I think this article should include a history section that includes some facts like, when was the first bible "published"; when did people decided to collect all these "stories" and put them together in one book; did the bible create religion or did religion created the bible, etc. Supaman89 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Development of the Jewish Bible canon, Development of the Old Testament canon ,Development of the New Testament canon, Bible Translations, Jesus myth hypothesis are just some of the articles that begin to cover what you request.jonathon (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * + Dating the Bible as well, which could use considerable development/expansion. Jheald (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it'd be nice to have them summarized in a couple of paragraphs in a History section so people wouldn't have to go to all those articles. Supaman89 (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All we need is to summarize these articles in a few lines. I think that's a good idea. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be pretty helpful, I'm not a bible fan myself so hopely someone who knows more about all these topics could redact the section. Supaman89 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article currently has a one or two sentence synopsis of those articles. The "See Also" section lists most of the related articles. Articles about the Canonicity of the Bible are missing. jonathon (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"the collection" versus "a collection"?
The current lead sentence is "The Bible is the collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity." Surely there are more than one collections of "religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity"? If so, then the unqualified definite article is inappropriate. I see two alternatives (emphasis for clarity and not in final article):


 * 1) "The Bible is a collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity"
 * 2) "The Bible is the XXXXXX collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity", where "XXXXXX" is some qualifier such as "primary", "most referred to", "best known", etc.

Being a newcomer to editing this doubtless highly charged article I don't feel comfortable making the change myself. However, I'm guessing the former phrase would be seen as pejorative to many Bible-believing readers, so I'd prefer the latter with an appropriate qualifier. Any thoughts, or editors braver than myself? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that the wording of the lead paragraph has been changed recently, this issue is now moot. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 10:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets get this together!!
This is a mess -- how many projects have to be in charge of this article? This article has nothing to do with Judaism. It might very well have, under the same title, in a text-based encyclopedia such as Brittanica, but this is a digital excyclopedia within which anyone can start a new article with any title. There should be but small paragraph with its own header making reference to the fact tha Jews have their own version of the Bible (that they may claim is both original and more accurate), which they call the Tanach. So there should be two mentions of Judaism in this article, in the introductory paragraphs (perhaps making reference to this or another dispute over the integrity or origins of the Bible) and in the section on Jewish Bible (perhaps discussing both the denotation and connotation of Torah vs. Tanach) and that is all. There is no need to have the documentary hypothesis mentioned at length (more than one sentence) in every article relating to the Bible (no wikilink intended), nor to all the specifics of religion X saying 123 while religion Y says 456. This is both silly and counterproductive. All of the 5 or 6 articles relating to the Bible (again, no wikilink) are a mess because of this infighting. Let each article speak from the perspective of its supporters, rather than each article speak from all perspectives, resulting in the undermining of almost everything written everywhere.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This parallels a similar discussion at Talk:Torah, as to whether it makes sense to have combined or different articles on Torah and Pentateuch.


 * I don't think it's helpful attitude for WP to allow that "this article is about this group's POV; no other POV should be admitted" (see POV fork).


 * But in any case, I think this article is different, because it is the top-level article on Bible for all faiths, and will be sought out as such. IMO it's useful to have an overview of all the different traditions in one article, which can be cited or printed out as such.  And the article uses summary style well to hand off to more detailed articles, on more detailed aspects.


 * As it stands, this article clearly does have a lot to do with Judaism. And IMO the Jewish content should remain.  Jheald (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Change to disambig page
The current article is really unwieldy due to the need for maintaining NPOV and the fact that the Jewish and Christian definitions of "Bible" are so radically different.

I suggest that this page be changed to a disambiguation page pointing to Bible (Jewish) and Bible (Christian). That way each of those articles can address the definition of Bible without having to worry about stepping on toes. And all the discussion here can be left here in history as well, with notes on the separate articles' discussion pages pointing back here for those who are interested. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This page is useful for understanding the relationships, and differences, among the Jewish canon and the varying Christian canons. Moreover, we already have both Tanakh and Hebrew Bible, so why do we need to add Bible (Jewish)? And I feel like if we take this road, someone will eventually insist on having, instead of Bible (Christian), Bible (Catholic), Bible (Orthodox), and Bible (Protestant). Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: I'm not sure I understand what would be wrong with that. The fact that the same word is used for multiple concepts doesn't mean that all of those concepts should be tossed into one pot.


 * But I don't think that a slippery slope argument is really pertinent. Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally different religions.  It's a difference which doesn't apply to those others.  While Catholics may accept the Apocrypha and Protestants not, that's relatively minor compared to the difference between the Jewish Bible and the Christian one.


 * I see this as a proposal that could reduce friction, and make Wikipedia more navigable. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I follow Jheald's argument above: "But in any case, I think this article is different, because it is the top-level article on Bible for all faiths, and will be sought out as such. IMO it's useful to have an overview of all the different traditions in one article, which can be cited or printed out as such." "Bible" is used of the Judeo-Christian canons, in all their multiplicity, so it is fitting that we have an article that discusses them all in one place. This is a good place to come to understand the differences among the canons, and from thence you can go to Tanakh or articles on the Christian canon for more particular information. Also, I fail to see the desirability of creating Bible (Jewish) when we already have both Tanakh and Hebrew Bible. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Given that all 39 books of the Christian Old Testament are also regarded as canonical by Jews, having separate articles for the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible stinks of redundancy. There could be separate articles, of course, but that doesn't mean this article has to be stripped down to a dab page. The only guideline we should be taking into account to decide whether there should be separate articles for the Jewish and Christian canons is WP:SIZE. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. "Bible" basically covers a small spectrum. Protestants and Jews agree on the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible.  Catholics expand it a bit, and Eastern Orthodox a bit further.  Most Christians agree on the New Testament, though a few groups add a book or two (like Hermas), and Revelation disappears from some lists.  I think one group adds 1 Enoch to the Hebrew Bible as well.  I covered that in... about three full lines.  That's not a big enough divergence to need a separate article.  And in fact, covering them in the same article adds value to help people see the boundaries of the different canons.  Finally, as has been mentioned, Tanakh and Hebrew Bible are already covered in separate pages, as I suspect would be the Apocrypha and New Testaments.Tim (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is not needed. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. To be frank I think it is rather absurd to think that  we can accurately and informatively cover all these variations in one article. It just seems like way too much at once, especially if someone is ignorant on the subject. Perhaps this article should be used to compare them and another be used for the Christian Bible (after all the Jewish one has its own, why not have seperate Christian one.Soxwon (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:DUE, this article should cover the Bible mainly from the Christian perspective while directing readers to the articles on the perspectives of other religions by means of appropriate links. Note also that we already have the proposed Bible (disambiguation) article for which we have a hatnote. That seems to need development.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Need Archive Pages
It looks like this Talk page needs archiving. I've never set up an archive page before, so I'll let someone with experience do it. --Fcsuper (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There were actually six archive pages, but they were not easy to see; I have provided a more visible icon, and archived talk from last year which actually took up a great deal of space. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the automatic archival because the guidelines for automated archiving explicitly state, "Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on an article talk page." And we need to have some discussion before we can say there is a consensus.  I do not object to automatic archival but I do not support it either.  My reason is (1) there are long periods when there is little discussion here and no need to archive and (2) suddenly a hundred kbs of talk can occur in a few weeks on a very controversial thread.  Personally I favor archiving threads only when they are concluded.  The pattern of talk on this page I do not think is well-suited to automatic archiving.  But if every other active editor is for it, I won't object. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What I see that could be done is an automatic update of the archive box at the top of the page. This I believe is non-controversial and can be done with . instead of the detailled code we see now which needs to be updated every time we create a new archive page past the 18th. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misunderstood your edit, and I apologize. I agree with you, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As for automatic archival, can do it according to our specifications, meaning that the age of a thread, not the overall size of the talk page, is the primary criterion that determines whether a thread is archived. In fact, the way Miszabot operates, the overall size of the talk page is ignored altogether. I propose that we set up automatic archival with the following specifications: threads that have had no activity in the past 60 days are archived, and archive pages must be no larger than 100 kbytes. Sensitive threads that should not be archived can be ignored by the bot simply by adding an unsigned and undated comment at the end. (This, I know from experience). --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, i won't stand in the way of any consensus. What you propose sounds reasonable to me but we need to see what others say. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain deletion of WP:RS for archaeology
Blanchardb deleted verifiable facts from two reliable sources with the explanation "rv material from biased sources." The reliable souces deleted are not biased, but distinguished archaeologists who have published their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, books, and the popular press. Professor Israel Finkelstein is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and is also the co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel. Professor Ze'ev Herzog is at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University, and the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005. The deleted reliable sources are:

Also, even if it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please bear in mind Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been  published by reliable sources . This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." I will restore the deleted verifiable facts from these reliable sources. If there is a good reason based upon other WP:RS or Wikipedia policy for not including this significant and highly relevant information, please explain. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a big problem with the content of the claims. I do however think we should be looking for scholarly sources - the most reliable sources on archeology are articles published in peer-reviewed journals or books published by university presses.  Surely we can find better sources for archeological claims.  I also find the language of the text weird - it was inserted after discussion of how much of the Bible was written in the 7th century BCE or later, and in this context there is nothing shocking about the lack of evidence of an Israelite slavery in Egypt.  Are you going to add to the article on The Aeneid that archeologists have shockingly discovered no evidence that Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your f/b. I'll go back and order the section chronologically. Also, the analogy of The Aeneid is a little off: archaeological evidence for Troy, Carthage, and Queen Dido is not disputed, although the ancient Roman belief that Romans are the descendants of Aeneus is easily disproven. No one believes this anymore, so archaeological relevance on The Aeneid page is slight; however, the belief that the ancient Israelites were Egyptian slaves, accepted monotheism and The Ten Commandments upon their exodus, wandered the desert, then conquered the Land of Israel and founded a great Empire—all beliefs "blatantly contradicted" by extensive and painstaking archaeological work—are still accepted by nearly everyone and are highly relevant for The Bible article. As for academic citations, these would be helpful too, but WP:RS accounts representing these collective conclusions are also appropriate, especially in a WP:SUMMARY article. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not accepted by nearly everyone, I think - I think only fundamentalists and Biblical literalists really believe these things. I agree, they believe them fervently, but they are not everyone. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I do not think your presentation does justice to how professional archeologists work. it is true that within Israel there is a nationalist bent to the public discourse on archeology in which people expect archeologists to prove or disprove national claims.  But archeologists themselves are less interessted in what they disprove than in what they can learn from the material remains of the past.  Maybe Wikipedia needs a good article on Biblical archeology that can be linked to this article.  But the question for archeologists - as for historians - is not whether specific events described in a work of literature actually happened, but what can we know about the world in which the people who told and listened to those stories lived?  I am not an expert but I am sure there is a good deal archeologists can tell us of life in the ancient Near East during the era in question (2300-4000 years BP).  What have we learned? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an article on Biblical archaeology but I do not consider it to be a good one. Perhaps you can improve it.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, what I know about Biblical archeology ends with R. de Vaux, Wm. Albright and G.E. Wright. Maybe we can try an article improvement drive.  Surely among all Wikipedians there must be some archeologists or historians who know the current notable literature? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The material you added is not factual. It's argumentation.  Argumentation based on reliable sources, true, but still argumentation.  It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative) to substantiate many parts of the biblical historical narrative.  Going point by point the way you're doing is unnecessary. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, I will copy here, verbatim, a paragraph from a reliable source on the Bible, that is, the introduction of Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties from Gleason Archer. "Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose that because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew."

So if you want an NPOV wording on the fact there is no archaeological evidence of this or that part of the Bible narrative, you must take into account Archer's position. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your deletion is not justified, simply because edits need not be perfect, to say nothing of WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV. Besides, I'm not sure how much can be said to a biblical inerrantist like Archer, but your point is well taken that the Bible is an archaeological document. Like any other such document, if you go dig a bunch of holes in an attempt to unearth confirmation of that document, but instead find that the results contradict that document, then one is compelled to certain conclusions, some stronger than others. The cited WP:RS rely mainly on stuff they dug up, or didn't dig up where and when it should have been to agree with the Bible, and the pagan record, though relevant is secondary—but even no non-Biblical record even mentions any the Exodus events, so you don't even have a case of disagreement, but one of nonexistence. Furthermore, this is a relatively recent problem for biblical inerrantists (after Archer), as these archaeological conclusions have been reached in the last thirty years or so, while Israel has been busy attempting to establish an archaeological argument for their occupation of the entire Land of Israel. I'll also add that the Illiad too is a archaeological document, and arguments like Archers could be used for it too, proving nothing. For these reasons, I'm reverting your deletion. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very close to a WP:3RR violation. In addition, the following sentences in your addition are POV: If your sources state these items that way, then your sources are biased. The way this kind of research was conducted, there can be only two conclusions, which are either I am therefore reverting your edit again. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the Israelites were never in Egypt
 * 2) did not wander in the desert
 * 3) did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign
 * 4) did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel
 * 5) there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire
 * 6) and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai
 * the Bible is true, or
 * the evidence is inconclusive.


 * This is a fair representation of verifiable facts from two reliable sources: even if it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been  published by reliable sources . This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." Rather than edit warring, please justify your deletion of these verifiable facts from reliable sources based on Wikipedia policy. I will argue that your deletion, or perhaps suppression, of these facts violates WP:NPOV. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV stands for neutral point of view, and that's what I'm enforcing. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted by 4 different editors on this page alone, not counting the other two pages where you added that "information". How can you still claim that your edit satisfies WP:NPOV then? --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The other editors made constructive criticisms, which I addressed. Your deletion is unconstructive and violates WP:NPOV on its face. Read WP:NPOV again: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been  published by reliable sources . This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." You just can't label significant, relevant verifiable facts from reliable sources as "POV" and delete it. Please avoid WP:EW, and explain your deletion of these relevant facts in terms consistent with Wikipedia policy. Without sufficient cause, you can be sure I will argue in other venues that your deletions violate WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE, and possibly WP:Censorship. On the other hand, if you do have sufficient cause, I will be quick to address your concerns, as I have with others in the past. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sufficient cause for deletion. You labeled as verifiable fact something that is really your source's conclusion. That's what makes it WP:POV. See your talk page for details. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it could have been better worded to better present it as archaeoligists' conclusions with supporting context. But all it takes to do that is a little wordsmithing. WP:CONSENSUS requires cooperating to help improve imperfect material. You can't just delete willy-nilly just because you think there's a flaw. WP:CONSENSUS is one of Wikipedia's core policies. All editors are expected to abide by it, and administrators are expected to enforce it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l&#39;infâme, I would suggest writing your next version here on the talk page rather than directly in the article and discussing it before changing the article back and forth. That way people can propose changes that solves some of the problems. I've looked at what you added and I agree it tends to take the view that the archeologists you agree with are completely right and other views are totally wrong. This material will need to be reworded to present it as the views of the archaeologists involved without using either "vouching" or disparaging language. You can explain more about how they came to reach the conclusions they did, the acceptance those conclusions have had in the archaeological world and similar matters if you provide sources. But you can't present things from the perspective suggesting that simply because they're archaeologists what they say is true. SeeWP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shirahadasha - one major problem with Ecrasex' text is that it presents these views as right and other views as wrong. That violates NPOV.  We need to be careful to identify whose views these are, i.e. not that they "are" right, but that x believes them to be right.  Also, it is not enough to generalize for all archeologists.  Archeologists are divided as to how they interpret the material remains.  As I said above, framing this as "the Bible is wrong" does not do justice to archeology, which is not about proving or disproving the Bible but rather interpreting material remains.  I acknowledge that such interpretations may have a variety of implications for how we read the Bible but again for most scholars it is not simply the Bible is right or the Bible is wrong.  That said, I strongly disagree with Blanchardb's "If your sources state these items that way, then your sources are biased." if i understand him correctly.  First, so what if they are biased?  Let's assume that all sources are biased i.e. represent a point of view.  NPOV does not call on us to provide no points of view but rather multiple points of view.  Second, it does not matter whether any of us editors think the views are biased or unbiased, right or wrong.  What matters is that they be notable and from reliable sources.  I believe that these views are notable and belong in the article.  I believe that the way they were presented in the article violated NPOV because it did not present the views acurately in the context of the larger work of the archeologists themselves, and because it overgeneralized and thus oversimplified complex debates among archeologists.  Here Shirahadasha and others have constructive advice.  I don't think anyone is saying that a better acount of archeological research doesn't belong in the article, even if it includes arguments by archeologists who claim that Israel did not exist as a nation until sometime before or after the founding of the kingdom - but such claims must be adequately contextualized and presented as views and not as facts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)