Talk:Christian biblical canons

Book of Mormon?
Is the Book of Mormon part of the Christian biblical canons? For background, of previous discussion see Talk:Christianity and environmentalism and to a lesser extent Talk:Religion and environmentalism.
 * If yes, it would need to be included here.
 * If no, why is the Latter Day Saint movement (Church of the Latter Day Saints and Mormons) currently included on Religion and environmentalism and Christianity and environmentalism?

99.181.135.218 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Book of Mormon included? If yes, please include.  If not, to what group would it be included?  108.73.112.195 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Combined two questions on Mormonism and Christianity. 99.181.143.155 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Biblical canon. 99.119.129.222 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus of Jerusalem not Jesus of Nazareth?

 * Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..." http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/7.10?lang=eng#9

Is the Jesus of Jerusalem in the Book of Mormon different than Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible?

99.181.159.115 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Protestant canons
It is useful to expand upon what the Protestant confessions actually say with respect to the canon. Most readers will not automatically know. That is why I strongly favour the first option over the second and would like to see further details added on the various confessions with respect to the Old Testament.


 * 1. Several Protestant confessions of faith identify the 27 books of the New Testament canon by name, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The Westminster Confession named the 39 books in the Old Testament and expressly rejected the canonicity of any others stating that "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."


 * 2.Several Protestant confessions of faith identify the 27 books of the New Testament canon by name, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament.

I can see no good reason why User:Editor2020 has twice reverted my edits, favouring the latter over the former. Greenshed (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was already mentioned, along with the other confessions, in the same paragraph. We get it. Just like the other confessions of faith mentioned, they identified a canon. A quote is not needed, just as it is not needed or provided for the other confessions listed. Editor2020 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Editor2020. Your favoured (limited) version does not mention the Protestant rejection of the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Neither does it mention the number of Old Testament books recognized by Protestants and nor does it provide any citations. Greenshed (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Editor2020. I find it disappointing that you have removed the additional material again without at least responding to the points above. I would welcome input from a third editor here. Greenshed (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You added the material. It was deleted by me. According to wp:brd you are now supposed to attempt to reach wp:consensus on the talk page. You have not done so, but have persisted in re-adding the material. Editor2020 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that once again you have attempted to impose your edit without attempting to reach wp:consensus on the talk page. That is not how it is done. You need to convince the other editors (including me) that this is an improvement to the page, not just re-apply the change. Editor2020 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Editor2020. wp:brd is not actually a policy but is a good statement of general intent - I am very happy to work on reaching consensus. As regards your assertion that I am attempting to impose my version without attempting to reach consensus on the talk page, other editors who look at the time stamps of my comments above and your reverts of my edits will see that I have been bringing up substantive points here which I ask you again to engage with.  So with a view to reaching consensus perhaps you could explain why you are opposed to inclusion of the following:
 * The confessional rejection of the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
 * The number of Old Testament books recognized by the Protestant confessions.
 * Citations to sources.
 * You noted previously that "we get it". You may be very well versed in the particulars of the French Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith but I suspect that many readers will not be aware of the confessional views on the canon. Greenshed (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh, OK, I'll try again. If you really wish to attempt to reach consensus, you need to NOT re-apply your changes before we have reached consensus on this Talk page. Re-adding your changes before this has occurred IS attempting to impose your version. The article needs to be returned to the version which existed before your disputed change. As for the rest of your statement, please do not make things up. I am not opposed to any of those things, I am opposed to your inclusion of a quote which violates due weight, as this one obviously does. Editor2020 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ps I have no problem with adding this quote in a footnote/reference.Editor2020 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * pps I just added it. If you find similar quotes from the others, please add them too. Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref for the French Confession of Faith added. Would editors be in favour of a break out article titled something like Protestant views of the biblical canon? This would hopefully meet the due weight concerns above while allowing the entire range of Protestant views from the Reformation to the present to be covered. Greenshed (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Christian Bible
I would think there ought to be an article titled simply "Christian Bible." There is an article titled "Bible" but it deals with Judaism and Christianity in a way that seems confusing. Someone suggested that this article is the main one representing the concept of Christian Bible. In fact, this article seems to represent the differences between all the versions. There is an article titled "Torah" and one titled "Quran."

There is obviously a Christian Bible. Why not have an article by that name? Dynasteria (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me amend that: There is an article titled "Torah," one titled "Tanakh," and one titled "Hebrew Bible," and one titled "Masoretic Text." This seems to make the case for a separate article titled "Christian Bible." Dynasteria (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dynasteria You really need to start an WP:RFC or a move request via WP:RM so that more people get involved. Also there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. The worse thing you could do is start separate discussions in several places, so decide what you want to do and point others to that venue. I'd go for an RfC or RM as they get automatically publicised. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would in any case appreciate a considered and thoughtful reply to my original query as to why there is NOT an article titled "Christian Bible." On any talk page. Thanks! Dynasteria (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:COMMONNAME which is one important reason. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Pointing me to a Wikipedia editing policy page is not the same as a considered and thoughtful reply.


 * The "common name" is "Bible" yet the article by that name (Bible) treats the Christian Bible and Jewish Bible as more or less the same animal with a different coat of fur. My statement remains that the Christian Bible by whatever name you choose deserves and asks for and requires an exclusive article of its own. The concern is not simply a name, but, IMO, the extent to which the name is the unifying feature, the clasp that gathers the many strands together into one.Dynasteria (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping you from starting a requested move or a new article. --Neil N  talk to me 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to start a new article. I started a request for comment over on the Bible talk page. That's the extent of my technological forays for one evening. Dynasteria (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Development of the Christian biblical canon be merged into Christian biblical canons. There is not so much content in the former that it could not be accommodated as a top-level section within the latter. Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)