Talk:Bible Numerics

Bible Numerics vs Bible code
This page used to redirect to Bible code. Bible code is actually a very different topic. A more relevant article to redirect to is Ivan Panin (the person who discovered or invented Bible Numerics), since it does at this stage deal with Bible Numerics (although not in great detail). Possibly in the future I will write an actual Bible Numerics article instead. Markdarb 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, feel that the article needs bringing up to date, and have made a few small, preparatory changes and additions.--DStanB (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Development and improvement
In the past few days, I have done a lot of work on this article to make it more accurate, objective and informative. In one fell swoop, someone called Phuzion has completely undone my work, and offered no argument or explanation. I require that explanation, please.--DStanB (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not know how to read the history of an article? The edit summary says "Reverted to revision 448510853 by Phuzion: remove original research, commentary, etc..". I agree. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and WP:NOR. This article has no sources and any additional text really needs good sources. Wenham might be ok, but "An example that is more in keeping with Ivan Panin's processes" is not unless you have a source that says Wenham is "more in keeping with Ivan Panin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you are making, but my own addition was not saying that Wenham agreed with Panin; only that an important starting point of Panin is factual information that is already accepted within scholarship. Why would well-established factual information require the backing of a source? Incidentally, I subsequently added a link to an external website, and that link has now also disappeared, ostensibly for failing the criteria of WP:VERIFY. I suggest you would have to look very hard to find a single one of those criteria that my suggestion might be shoe-horned into. Any chance of the link being re-instated?--DStanB (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore that last part. I've just received the automatic notification of your explanation.--DStanB (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm wondering why the Article does not tell readers more about Bible Numerics, in terms of what the subject might incorporate. Are we not forcing inquisitive minds to go elsewhere to satisfy their wish for knowledge?--DStanB (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on that last comment. Given the fact that an article on Bible Numerics is needed, as I wholeheartedly agree it is, then it is incumbent on its author(s) to be as thorough and as objective as it is possible to be. I do not believe that standard has yet been achieved. In this shockingly brief article, there are vague references and allusions to alternative forms of numerics, without offering the reader either specific cases or access to relevant sources. Examples of this vagueness are: Suppose a reader comes to this article deliberately, but with no prior awareness of the subject. Then surely the first thing they will want to know more about is the 'What?'. Otherwise, questions concerning matters such as 'Who?', 'When?', 'Why?' and even 'Why not?' have nothing to hang from. I notice, by the way, that the reference to Panin's Panic is not referenced. So the reader will be left high and dry, wondering what the arguments are. We are told that Bible Numerics was pioneered by Ivan Panin whose work has been challenged, but not whether anyone else might have added to or improved upon his work, nor who coined the term Bible Numerics. And there is no mention of similar and related esoteric interests pursued by contemporaries of Panin.
 * "numerical patterns...(particularly involving the number seven)"
 * "the use of numbers to represent certain concepts", and
 * "Gematria"

In the absence of that kind of substance, only yesterday I added an external link to a webpage - a single page with no onward links - that would have given the interested reader some insight into the application of several forms of Bible Numerics. This link, along with several pre-existent ones, was promptly removed by an enthusiastic editor. I am not even sure that the Wikipedia policy WP:ELNO under which is was removed is valid in this case. Of the 20 criteria of "Links normally to be avoided", not a single one seems relevant. Elsewhere, the policy guideline: WP:VERIFY implies that the criterion of verifiability is to be applied to "Wikipedia mainspace". That would undoubtedly rule out the linked webpage being used as a citation. But as an independent source of appropriate information? Surely not, if it helps fill a gaping hole in the article.--DStanB (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Enthusiastic? I'm not sure why you call me that. But the part of ELNO that is clearly relevant is 11, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" I can't see a reason for making an exception for kingfisher1947. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Try and . Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not accept that item 11 is relevant, for the following reasons. Firstly, the link I suggested is neither a blog nor a fansite. And if you trace the ELNO item 11 link to the Wikipedia page on "Personal web page", one of the proper concerns is that a 'personal page' may be a "pointer or table of contents to the content-rich pages inside, such as résumés, family, hobbies, family genealogy, a blog, opinions, online journals and diaries or other writing, work, sound clips, movies, photos, or other interests". Not only is the page I have suggested not a pointer or portal, but if you have examined its content, you will know that most, if not all of the criteria listed above are simply not applicable. At a push, you might presume that the term "opinions" could apply in this case. But that would be to neglect the real value of the webpage I have commended, in which every one of the many observations at the very least appear surprisingly coherent. In particular, a source text of unprecedented brevity is seen to give rise to a remarkable amount of eye-catching numerical content. I only suggest that it has the potential to illustrate a variety of classes of biblical numerics in an entertaining way that could, if only temporarily, compensate for the article not yet answering the question: What is Bible Numerics? This webpage addresses every one of the areas of vagueness to which I drew attention previously, and more besides. To allow an external link to the webpage of kingfisher1947 (my own nom de plume) would not be an exception if it does not blatantly violate the WP:ELNO guidelines. Besides, if the recommended webpage is not accepted in that capacity, then how else would you propose to fill the gaping holes in the article?--DStanB (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So that's your webpage? In which case you need to read WP:COI and you shouldn't add it to articles. The Wikipedia article Personal web page is completely irrelevant to our guidelines - they are not defined by our articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, Ark blueprint is not acceptable as a reference in the main Article. But what can you do instead to explain to the hopeful reader of the article what the subject is about? Because at the moment what they see is more like a curt dismissal than a reasoned one. It suggests that, because the author sees no substance in the topic therefore it is not possible to offer substance in a description of what it has meant to people in the past.--DStanB (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Empty sections
Numbers in the Bible

An extra dimension of meaning is provided by the use of numerals in the Bible. Most numbers have special meanings attached. For example, the number forty has the additional meaning of ′purification′. Moses wandered in the desert for forty days -- not necessarily, but until the people were purified. Noah experienced rain for forty days and forty nights -- not necessarily, but until the population was purified. Seven has the additional meaning of completeness and perfection both physical and spiritual. Thus, seven days in the week, seven days of Creation, seven churches visited by the Apostle Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxx2 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Numbers and Biblical Themes 

 History of Bible numerics 


 * New sections go at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirected
...to Biblical Numerology since it's the same topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aw, Ian, numerics and numerology are not identical. Perhaps I did not express my ideas correctly even by giving examples, but (for example) "forty" was selected by the writers not to be literal, but to connect the event with a larger concept, an "easter egg" if you like.Lynxx2 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)