Talk:Criticism of the Bible/Archive 1

Problems
This is only with the introductory paragraph...

Traditionally, the Bible was seen as inerrant, the church orthodoxy vigorously defending its accuracy... -- this is untrue. Inerrancy is a fundamentalist notion; while Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians have maintained the importance of Biblical authority, inerrancy essentially arose in the 19th century.

...even killing its detractors by burning them at the stake. -- Examples of Church officials killing people for denying inerrancy? Any?

Again, this is one paragraph. To simply delete or replace these lines render the entire article meaningless...yet they stand, inaccurate and POV. Is there hope for this article? KHM03 17:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KHMO3, There has been nothing in my learning thus far to believe that the present day "Fundamentalist" movement is nothing more than that, a modern view. The original scribes saw most texts as having either Mythos and or logos. Mythos was not concerned neccissarily with the "historical or scientific accuracy" of the text but believed it had a deeper meaning. E.G. a child reading a greek fable and getting a moral message out of it. Logos was factual, pre-scientific but close enough. The problem with modern times is that we find have a religion that needs a mythos to continue in a society that has become fully logos. -stephen D.-

Reason
See Talk:Criticism of Christianity. This is partly a sub article of that article to relieve from it the criticisms that were directed at the bible more than christianity. This article also takes the opportunity to alleviate similar sections from other related articles. Many of the POV issues that you raise may have a direct relationship to the fact that that article was regarded as highly POV. This article is a first step in attempting to remove POV from the equation. Also see this article's edit history - the edit summaries should give you some idea of which articles the content was moved from. Clinkophonist 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The writing is still POV and inaccurate, regardless of the rationale. KHM03 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well edit the POV out of it then instead of whinging. Clinkophonist 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do that; but you keep reverting to POV versions of other articles! KHM03 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's all confine our remarks to improving the articles. I fail to see how splitting up a POV article into multiple sub article makes any of them more neutral. It might improve the article that no longer has those sections, but keeping the POV in another article instead of deleting it seems to defeat the purpose. 12.158.58.107 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason?
Is there a reason for this article to exist? Yet another fork re:"Alleged inconsistencies", "Internal consistency", etc.? Any real reason not to redirect to another article? KHM03 18:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this title is just confusing for those looking for information on Biblical criticism. - SimonP 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Any proposals? KHM03 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I look at it, the article is filled with so many inaccuracies and NPOV statements, the whole thing may need rewritten entirely or redirected. KHM03 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would simply redirect this to Biblical criticism. The basic idea of this article, that reports of inconsistencies and inaccuracies are attacks on the Bible, is highly POV. These are positions held by many, if not most, faithful Christians. - SimonP 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong, it is not POV. There is legitimate criticism by many people, and it is not in any way POV to cover those criticisms here at wikipedia. Also, note that biblical criticism is not the same thing as this page, it is a specifically defined term - while this page is not about the term, but is instead about the criticism. Fresheneesz 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

old intro
''Traditionally, the Bible was seen as inerrant, the church orthodoxy vigorously defending its accuracy, even killing its detractors by burning them at the stake. Several issues have nevertheless been historically considered to require answering, resulting, in the case of Judaism, in the vast Midrash, and in Christianity in significant independant works such as Adversus Haereses, Summa Theologiae, and many of the writings of Augustine of Hippo.''

The Bible was not traditionally seen as inerrant. "Church orthodoxy" defended the authority of the church tradition, not the accuracy of the Bible. If anyone was burned at the stake, it was probably not because they claimed the Bible was not inerrant, but because they interpreted it differently. The works cited were generally not intended to support the Bible's inerrancy, but to defend various theological points. I don't think there's anything in this paragraph worth salvaging. If someone disagrees, I trust they will provide sources or at least supportive arguments.

I'd like to point out, there is no proof about the myth on Patriarchs. Rarely are there people who see the patriarchs as myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs)
 * Are you able to substantiate that the bible was not traditionally seen as inerrant with some references?Clinkophonist 13:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not his burden to substantiate his claim. Its the burden of this article to substantiate what it has written. However, I don't think it would be very hard to find evidence to substantiate it. The church has pushed the bible's truth on millions of peasants and church goers for centuries - why else would so many people see outrageous stories in the bible as fact and miracles, rather than flat out metaphor. Fresheneesz 08:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Votes for deletion
The AFD discussion rises a number of concerns as to the quality of the article, which can be remedied. One of the problems is removal of overlap with other mentioned articles. "Criticism of Bible" is a narrowly defined topic and deserves a separate article. The argument that it creates confusion with "Biblical criticism" is moot. The latter term is wrong in the first place. There no any "criticism" in the latter topic and its correct name would be "Critical analysis of Bible" or something like that, with real criticism less than criticism of Communism in Soviet Union. Mukadderat 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted! In what encyclopedia will you see an article specifically set out to criticize anything?  Encarta's Dictionary defines criticism, or 'the act of criticizing' as "a spoken or written opinion or judgment of what is wrong or bad about somebody or something".  The act of critizing anything is so prone to POV and dispute that it's not going to be possible to complete a full article on the subject while being completely neutral based solely on existing facts.  This entire article is plagued with passages like the "Internal Consistency" section, quoted below.
 * "There are several places in the Bible in which it seems to contradict itself, apparently presenting, amongst other difficulties, different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Solutions to these issues supported by the majority of scholars include the modern documentary hypothesis, two source hypothesis (in various guises), and allegations that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. On the other side, contrasting with these critical stances, are positions supported by literalists such as creationists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source, but the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles, except maybe Hebrews, written by Paul."
 * What citations or specific references to fact are found here? Absolutely none.  The title of the article is 'internal consistency', yet it doesn't even quote specific passages from the bible that prove weather or not the bible is internally consistent.  Without specific references this entire section reads like a POV, and in my opinion this section is representative of the quality and style of the article overall.--Alex 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia covers criticism of a bunch of things - famous unproven theories, famous disproven theories, conspiracy theories, the goverments actions in 911, Criticisms of communism, Criticisms of islam, etc. Citable critisism is not POV. Fresheneesz 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Section moved from Moses page
This is being moved here from the Moses article:
 * ==Ethical dilemmas==
 * If the Bible gives an accurate description of Moses' views, then by "postmodern standards" some of his commands might amount to calls for murder, war crimes or slavery. For instance, according to Numbers 31:15-18, he called for the massacre of boys and the enslavement of female children to Israelite veterans of the Midian war ("They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the young men. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.").


 * For those Jews who practice Judaism, as well as some Christians, the five books of Moses are holy books revealed by God, and the message within them is eternal. For Unitarian Universalists, and other liberal movements, it is regarded as a sacred text, but not as a divinely revealed work. Adherents of all these faiths understand the serious ethical dilemmas that arise when reading certain parts of the Bible. As such, Jews and Christians have developed a number of responses to understanding such texts. There are two basic positions that one can assume when approaching such texts, both of which offer a variety of responses.


 * One using the traditional approach was originally called a fundamentalist. The fundamentalist term has evolved to reflect other meanings however, including that of "a person with an unthinking devotion to an agenda without regard to reason." The traditional approach assumes that Biblical characters, the situations described, and the words said took place as the Bible says. The Bible is believed to be divinely revealed truth, unique among historical texts. This view does not exempt humans from a carefully reasoned examination of the scriptures, however, and in fact requires it. Translation, historical context and assumptions, and the definition and applicability of terms used in the original text not only affect what the Bible "says," they define it.


 * A fundamentalist may believe there is one valid source (organization, person, etc.) for the interpretation of the "truths" of the Bible. The traditional Christian view implies however that a "literal interpretation of the Bible" is an oxymoron. The important characteristic of the traditional Christian view comes from the Bible itself--that scripture is useful in the context of personal applicability (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus, blind adherence to an organization's or one's own static interpretation is rejected in this view, as devotion to the "living" God prohibits devotion to a static ideology. The traditional Christian view implies that the Bible is unique among texts in its truthful nature (lack of falsehood), while simultaneously implying that truth is meaningful only in living application through a personal relationship to God - attempting to adhere to a static set of moral laws is believed to lead to death (see, e.g., Romans 7). The traditional Christian believes one arrives at this view by "answering the call of God," who speaks to all mankind through revelation, where revelation is never contradictory and consists of both the Bible and experience gained through life. When faced with an ethical dilemma in Moses's writings, a traditional Christian might employ critical examination of available historical context, critical examination of how the writing should be translated, and critical examination of his or her understanding of God's nature to determine what the passage means, all the while believing the Bible contains no falsehood. For an example of this process applied to the Midian war, see this exploration of Moses's writing from a traditional Christian point of view: Moses and the Midianites. Moses, in the traditional Christian view, was considered a good man not because of his ethics, but because of his trust in God. In this view, only Jesus was a good man for what he did, the rest of mankind (including Moses and his contemporaries) can only become good by believing and trusting God. Traditional Christianity believes that one who honestly looks for God will find God, as this is stated in the Bible, and that honest, rational exploration yields the Bible as the most rational explanation for human experience.


 * Liberal Christian denominations and congregations reject this view. They hold that the texts of the Bible were edited together from a number of sources over a long period of time, and the authorship and timing of the Torah is debated. In this view, the situations described in the Bible do not necessarily represent divinely inspired truth but instead represent the views of the editors of the Bible.

This section was a mess of original research (see policy page WP:OR) and information in the wrong place, and I need not go into detail about the other policies it violates or might violate (you can follow the links from WP:OR). JBogdan 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV - Bible skeptic view dominates - no balance - plus non cited material
POV - Bible skeptic view dominates - no balance - plus non cited material. I deleted all the non-cited material. ken 10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Ken, pls stop the mass deletion
Bring up more specific issues, instead of deleting most of the article.

A lot of points here are not sourced, just because they are modern common knowledge (like Lions not killing by strangulation). Citing a single author in those cases would only give the false impression, that there is no consensus.

Pjacobi 10:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says material has to come from reliable sources and cited. I deleted all the unsubstantiated material including the lion/strangulation material. ken 10:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * You can just ask any biologists working in this field on this issue. --Pjacobi 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PJacobi, don't ask me to ask again. Wikipedia say you need to support and cite.  In addition, you are very wrong about lions/strangulation and I will cite my well documented source.   ken 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

RfC feedback

 * Lions generally kill with bites to the neck, which collapses the windpipe, but they could also concievably do it in a number of ways, such as breaking an artery by tooth or claw, or even with force of impact. Jefffire 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While large scale deletions seem counter-productive, this article is ridiculously short on citations, particularly considering the clearly contentious nature of the material. If it's in contention, it's probably not as "common" of human knowledge as you think, either.  However, it should be really easy to find a citation supporting the claim.  Wikipedia should not be making claims as to right and wrong, even with something like slavery, though.  Ethical judgements are not encyclopedic.   Sxeptomaniac 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Internal consistency and Bible vs. History section
After looking at it, and doing some minor rewording, I'm strongly considering doing some major removal of material in those two sections. The Internal consistency section in particular makes no attempt to even come close to NPOV (not to mention plagiarism from here and here), and is way too long for one that merely references a main article. I particularly think we should remove the numbered list. Since we already have some conflict over material removal, I want to check here first. Is there any reason we should keep it? Sxeptomaniac 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say we should minimise the number of places where to struggle for a good coverage of the topic, this would imply that getting "internal consistency" right should be the task at Internal consistency and the Bible and a very short summary should do at the moment. --Pjacobi 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That section isn't just poorly written, it's downright erronious, anachronistic, and western/modernist in interpretation of things. Tyre never rebuilt? Well, there's a city named tyre, however there is no citadel on the island of tyre, and that's the requirement for city in premodern palestine. Bats aren't birds? Anachronism- taxonomy is a modern invention, and the hebrew word for bird encompasses the bat. This is just lousy. I mean, really fallacious. The rest of this fails to understand the bible as a work of literature, which it was. In literature, context is key, and pulling "wisdom good" out of proverbs and "wisdom bad" out of ecclesiastes rips them from their literary context and makes statements which the bible never makes itself.Thanatosimii 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking the view, that the Bible is a work of literature, interpreting using methods generally applied to those works, i.e. Bible criticism, makes this article Criticism of the Bible indeed look pointless. Guessing why this article exists, I'd assume as a counterpoint to spread of Biblical literalism, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical inspiration. --Pjacobi 07:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Literature does not necesarrily mean fiction, it simply means constructed with the writing techniques/skills that go into a written work intending to be more than a base work. It doesn't contradict those three points, it just demands that the text be read properly and in historical, literary, and lingual contexts. Thanatosimii 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I don't see anyone jumping to the defense of the list, I'll cut that now, then I'll see if I can find some ways to whittle down the history section. Sxeptomaniac 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this articke can just become a stub or glorified disambig, telling the reader that to look at Biblical criticism, Documentary hypothesis and Higher criticism on one hand, or at The Bible and history, Science and the Bible and Internal consistency and the Bible OTOH (or perhaps even at Criticism of Christianity, if he was looking for that). Short paragraphs liek you've written for consistency can introduce each topic. --Pjacobi 10:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored a bit of blanked content. I have tried to rework where possible, for NPOV, add citations, etc. I think a lot of this information is very important. Why was the section on ethics that linked to 3 relevent spinout articles deleted wholesale? Why was the seciton on textual criticism removed? Why does the section on Genesis being considered a myth by scientists keep being removed? The Jesus Myth and the Gnostic views are relevent here. I have condensed the JM section, and sourced the Gnostic section. Can we discuss issues that still remain in these sections instead of simply blanking content? (This bit about leprosy and lions seems nitpicky for this overview article, and wasn't sourced, and didn't show up when I did a brief google search, so I support removing that paragraph).--Andrew c 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed links
I removed a Mormon link, a Jewish link, and an Islamic link as they seemed not so much specifically addressing the subject of the article as promoting the related religions. I should say I scanned the linked sites only; please feel free to correct me if I erred, by explaining why the links were relevant here. I also wish to note that the Islamic page was really spammy: nasty html effects and so on. If an Islamic criticism of the bible is included here, I would strongly prefer we find a higher quality site. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bible history
I have removed the part saying " as well as by the vast majority of Christians, and more generally by popular society.", which is related to the fact that christianism might be a mythical creation (last paragraph). Of course Christians are rejecting this position, it's their religion! No need to specify it then. Furthermore, the fact that it is rejected by the population in general is totally irrelevant and appears to me as being a defense of christianism more than an objective statement. In addition, there is no reference supporting it. 01 Data 10 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ken, your sources are unreliable
Seriously Ken (kdbuffalo), first stop vandalizing the evolution section and stop deleting viewpoints that contradict your personal religious opinions.

"Blocked - You have been blocked one week for continuing to disrupt and troll evolution and evolution related articles. IT has been made very clear at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2 that the community is unwilling to tolerate this behaviour. Noth of your acknowledged accounts have been blocked. pschemp | talk 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been restarted and now set to nine days, due to the block evasion. -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kdbuffalo" " --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16_Deletions_by_user_Kdbuffalo

"clogging up this page with nonsense... indeed! I didn't object to this earlier, because the serious contributors to this article were willing to take the time, yet again, to respond reasonably to Creationist trolling. ken, please review the big red warning notice at the top of this page. This page exists to discuss article improvements, not to discuss your religous beliefs and pointed objections to properly sourced scientific material. I'm willing to take responsibility for unilaterally deleting any further nonsense posts on this talkpage. Just call me an "Evo-Nazi" :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC) "

"I have taken the liberty of investigating "ken" aka kdbuffalo's history on Wikipedia. I was very dismayed to realize that what we are seeing on this page is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. For example, take a look here. I am not sure what the answer is, but I get the impression this is a radical fundamentalist who is not open to reason. I as well have to reluctantly say that maybe the only solution is to delete any trolling by ken/kdbuffalo on sight. I could say far more, but this is not the place.--Filll 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"

---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/Archive_021#There_is_not_overwhelming_scientific_consensus_for_evolutionary_position

Also in your documentation of sources:

"PJacobi, don't ask me to ask again. Wikipedia say you need to support and cite. In addition, you are very wrong about lions/strangulation and I will cite my well documented source. [1] ken 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo "

I read the article in your website link "http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm." The entire website talks about how evolution is incorrect and how the bible was scientifically accurate. Now unless you find a source that documents actual physical evidence instead of speculation, your source is unreliable.

-intranetusa

Improvement suggestion

 * This article clearly does need work. Prehaps it should be written in the same format as the Criticism of the Qur'an article is written in.--Sefringle 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will second that, it is a bit of a mess! 213.106.252.209 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
I removed this reference, but my edit got reverted: The consensus among critical scholars is that a number of the Pauline Epistles are pseudonymous. One scholar does not make a consensus! StAnselm 23:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the source before you go criticizing it. Do you have a source that says otherwise regarding pseudonymity? What do you believe is the scholarly consensus?-Andrew c 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, why don't you enlighten me and tell me what it says? Or else I'm going to think it's a dummy reference. Anyway, I don't believe a consensus exists, which, by the way, is what the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article implies. With a footnote regarding those scholars who consider the pastorals Pauline: Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. StAnselm 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I don't have to do your own research for you, and you shouldn't assume that a citation is a "dummy reference" without bothering to open up a book. (heck, you don't even have to go to the library, this book is available for search inside with Amazon.com). Anyway, the wording we have at the authorship article is contemporary scholarly opinion widely regards them as pseudographs. Raymond E. Brown says that all of the pastorals are considered pseudonymous by 80-90 percent of critical scholarship. Ephesians is listed as 80%, Colossians at 60%. Ehrman says "When we come to the Pastoral epistles... there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by cholars as non-Pauline." and "Is it conceivable that any books of this sort [pseudonymous] came to be included in the New Testament canon? The consensus among scritical scholars is a resounding yes." So based on this, I see no reason to change what we have, or even qualify it by saying this is simply Ehrman's belief (because Brown confirms it). Perhaps we could qualify "scholar" with "critical" as both sources do, and perhaps we could use a less confusing word than consensus, like "vast majority". But other than that, the spirt of our previous wording is in accordance with what is presented in these introductory college level texts on the NT.-Andrew c 16:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was particularly the word "consensus" that annoyed me, and I certainly wasn't going to take Ehrman's word for it that a consensus exists. I've changed it to reflect the wording you've given me. StAnselm 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

criticism pages
I see there is a criticism of the Bible page and criticism of qur'an, but is there a criticism of the torah page? (Ssd175 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
 * If you want such a page, there is of corse nobody stopping you from creating it. Just make sure you have sources, and you can create it.--Sefringle 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that the Torah and the Old Testiment were the same thing.CerealBabyMilk 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong ;) The Tanakh, and the OT are the same thing (basically), the Torah is the first five books of the OT. ornis 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
Although I can see how people criticize the Bible on the grounds that dinosaurs existed, this edit goes beyond what the critics argue with respect to the Bible, and that's why I reverted it. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid link (2008-02-12)
Reading the subsection "Ethics in the Bible", the link after "...Bible's judgments" was invalid when clicked on today. (...Bible's judgements. )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.129.2 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Is the neutrality tag really necessary? Though the viewpoint of this article may be objectionable to those who take the bible as an axiom, it is as neutral as it should be, taking into account that it is an article highlighting one side of a viewpoint. The name of the article is "Criticism of the Bible," not "Validity of the Bible." Therefore, by its very nature, it should highlight viewpoints that are very one-sided. Why should there be supporive viewpoints on an article outlining criticisms? Chandler (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For many of the stated points, there is no mention of what Bible scholars reply to these arguments. That's why it is one-sided. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're both right... Christian scholars would certainly have plenty to say in response. But I do also feel that the article is criticism by nature of the title. The header clearly states "This article is about criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance." (Perhaps an entire separate article entitled "Validity of the Bible" is in order?) Jofwu (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prophesies
This article seems to ignore the highly symbolic nature of prophesies, and also that they are not always predictions, rather messages from God. Also, God deciding not to destroy a city, he has previously said he would destroy is common, and consistent with his character. Take the book of Jonah for example. Also, looking up some of these verses, sees them as paraphrased wrongly, or at least put together oddly. For example Rev 1:1 is put together with 1:7 with no indication of the separation. this cutting and splicing can not be allowed. Also, due to the importance and controversy of this topic, only the best sources will do. Archaeologists have different views of ancient history, and some with seemingly qualifications have made outlandish claims. Rds865 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it happens over and over. Example: In the criticism beginning with "Amos 7:17 prophecied...," 2 Chron. 26 mentions that Uzziah had leprosy but never that he died from it. Watch the paraphrasing. By nature of the article, it is largely opinions; but don't let opinions shape truth. :) Jofwu (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Quote
I feel that I'm not in a position to edit this article myself because I don't agree with most of it. :) But I would like to suggest that the Lewis quote under "Unfulfilled Prophecies" is taken out of context. Jofwu (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)\


 * Agreed - the two paragraphs following the section quoted make it clear that he considered Jesus' professed ignorance of the date of the second coming a natural consequence of his taking on a human nature. Note how, even in the section quoted, Lewis describes this as an "(apparently) mistaken pre­diction" and an "(appar­ent) mistake." EastTN (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If not deleted:
If this "encyclopedia" which appears to have been overrun by atheist fools is going to have an article regarding criticisms of the Bible, than an article in support of the Bible should be allowed. No wonder Wikipedia is going down the drain if some continue to turn this into an atheist "encyclopedia" of what they thing is right and wrong. --24.177.1.126 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, is it you, Mr. Biblical-God? If you're angry with the article, please, edit it, and of course, provide rational, blessed by you sources. Oh wait, you couldn't write this, because you don't exist. 81.95.228.239 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is an extremely biased article (one of the most biased I've seen on Wikipedia), ironically representing the criticisms far too uncritically. It needs to spend at least a little time talking about arguments against the criticisms. I've observed that some people above have suggested that it be deleted; was there any kind of decision on that? Lord Seth (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The decision was that it should be kept, on account of two pertinent facts:
 * 1) The bible is a document which does receive large amounts of criticism, which said criticism is therefore notable.
 * 2) This page originated as a spin-off from the Bible article, as that article was getting much larger than the recommended size.

Its presence is no more significant than that of Criticism of the Quran, for example. To answer 24.177.1.126's rather prejudiced opinion, please note that the defence/support of religion is known as Apologetics (from a Greek word meaning 'defence'), and it is a subject which has many articles to which 24.177.1.126 is certainly welcome to add to; see, for example, Christian apologetics. Clinkophonist (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be an indexing issue here. If someone searches for criticism of the Bible, they'll end up here.  But some readers may not be knowledgeable enough to search for a defense or support of the Bible under the term apologetics (I suspect that my have been the case with 24.177.1.126).  An based on a quick search, while there seem to be lots of articles on Apologetics, and lots of articles on the Bible, I'm not finding one on "Biblical Apologetics" or "Defense of the Bible."  It's not clear which article or articles would constitute the "other side" to this one, but it would seem appropriate to help readers interested in the other side by finding the two or three most appropriate "defense" articles and providing convenient links here. We don't want to take sides, but we do want to make sure readers can easily find both sides. EastTN (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"In modern times..."
In modern times, the view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many mainstream academics in the field of Biblical Criticism.

Certain interpretations of the moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups.

So in the past, everyone accepted that the Bible was historically accurate and a guide to morality? Likewise, in the past, everyone accepted the moral decisions in the Bible as unquestionable?

These vague statements about what groups are questioning these apparently "universal beliefs" about the Bible are unscholarly and offensively Euro-centric. Such statements are just so shockingly absurd that I'm at a loss for words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyldscefing (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibleverses as references?
Some arguments why bibleverses should be written in the text of this article and not as references:

1. If one wants to look at the bibleverses (the section "unfullfilled prophecies" is a discussion of bibleverses) then a link in the text needs only ONE click to open the passage in a new tab and again ONE click to get back to the text where one has read. In the other case one has to use TWO clicks to get to the verse and TWO clicks to get back to the text (because the curser of the first tab is still in the references). Hence bibleverses in the text are much quicker to reach.

2. It is good to know which verses is the discussion about. In the text one can see this immediately.

3. If all bibleverses are in the text it is clear that in the references there are only the sources which back up the text, I mean the opinions of scholars. If there are also verses in the references it is often unclear what you can reach in the references if you look there.

4. In my opinion the legibility is not really much worse if the verses are in the text. This argument is much weaker than the ones mentioned above. -- Nikil44 (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nikil44, your points are well taken. May I ask you to consider another viewpoint? Wikipedia is the only place, of which I am aware, that includes inline citations of Bible references in full size font that is in color (hyperlink) and includes the icon. In articles where there are relatively few Bible references, it's not such a distraction. In an article such as this where one is trying to read the text and has so many "interruptions" of references such as, the flow of the article seems clearly interrupted. The usual way to cite biblical references elsewhere is via footnotes or endnotes. It boils down to whether we want to follow the method used in "scholarly journals" and minimize the interruptions of the text flow, or break the train of thought with hyperlinks in full size font and in color.


 * ALL INLINE:
 * According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (, and ), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally  own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[40] God broke his promise, as conceded in  and  and.


 * COMPARED WITH REFERENCES:
 * According to Genesis and Deuteronomy,[60] Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally[61] own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever,[62] that Acts and Hebrews concede that God broke his promise.


 * Please reconsider which approach achieves the "greater good." Thanks very much. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand your point. But the example you gave is extreme, there are many sentences which contain only one or two bibleverses. I for myself like the inline citations but I agree that sometimes it is too much. So you can change it as you like, perhaps, in some cases, you can leave the verse in the text. - Nikil44 (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Spin Off?
It seems to me that this article is getting seriously large, and there is much more material that can and should(?) be added still. The article can then be more easily polished up. I propose that the sections on Prophesies and Unfulfilled Prophesies be spun off into one separate article. Would there be any objections? Any suggestions for a title? Wdford (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a criticism?
Okay, I read this:


 * The controversy between Jews and Christians on the virgin birth of Jesus was described about A.D. 130 by Justin Martyr—teacher, defender of the Christian faith, and martyr:
 * Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin.
 * Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah. Or as Christians saw the sign promised to Ahaz in a virgin becoming pregnant, Jews tried to "demythologize" it as much as possible by seeing it in the natural process of a young woman conceiving a child and any other events described in Isaiah 7:14 and following verses.

And I think I understand it. But - how is this a criticism of the Bible? At most this is aying there are two different interpretations on a Biblical verse?

I have this problem with much of this article - in some cases the issue is not a "criticism" but a different interpretation. Which means at most this article is about criticisms of some interpretations of the Bible.

Am I missing something?

If I am right, I think that this article should be turned into a disambiguation page for many articles on diverse interpretations of the Bible. When there are simply competing interpretations, we can have links saying (for other interpretations see ...) and for genuine and general criticisms of the interpretation, each article can have a "criticisms" section.

But debates over how to interpret something are not "criticisms," it is a misleading use of the word. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree in that comparing different interpretations is really stretching the definition of criticism. What is your suggestion if it is a disambig. page?--Ari (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert Opinions Needed
"A lot of points here are not sourced, just because they are modern common knowledge (like Lions not killing by strangulation). Citing a single author in those cases would only give the false impression, that there is no consensus."

With such a heavily disputed topic, more opinions from experts in Biblical literature and Historocity are needed. Citations are crucial if this article is to live up to Wikipedia standards. MORE CONTROVERSIAL = MORE CITATIONS--guest: Dan Barrett —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.115.105 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this befit an encylopedia?
How does this article fit in an encyclopedia? I thought that encyclopedias had entries about nouns, not concepts. Anything that is a criticsm of anything is going to get into opions and arguments about this vs. that. That doesn't fit in an encyclopedia at all. Encyclopedias report facts, not arguments for and against. Perhaps it would be much more fitting to have a page called Critics of the Bible and have links to historical critics, and a synopsis of what they say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.243.11.105 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia, and controversy pages exist on a number of issues. Wikipeida's mission is to inform the people, on just about anything. Criticism exists on this issuse, so it belongs in an article. Encyclopedias report facts, not arguments for and against, but unfortunately for you, Wikipedia does. Case Closed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.195.170 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any experience on wikipedia editing, as for every subject so far someone already wrote about things i did not know about. However, i think that this page does NOT have the purpose to criticise and couter-criticise this controversial book, but to show general, well and not so-well known ideas about its critics, and cite famous people and texts and whatever objective, well-organised (or just call it "good" ), trusted source just like in any other well-crafted document.

This page is about the controversies (? sorry for my very poor english)of a book and has to use the apropriate format and resources for it.

People criticising this book may mostly be atheists, and may be victims of discrimination or persecution by theists (those who may not criticise the book). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_atheists, however i do NOT beleive that persecution and/or discrimination or as we see it here, the destruction of precious work and information are in anyway acceptable when making an encyclopedia with a purpose of having a broader view.

If you have anything to say that is NOT criticism of this book, the following page is probably the right one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible. If not, creating a new page could be the right thing to do. Voraistos 11:20, 29 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls
The article says that the Dead Sea Scrolls showed many different variations, etc, to the effect that changes were made blah blah blah... This is completely wrong, if anything, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that hardly any changes have been made at all. The entire book of Isaiah was found with the other DSS's, and when they compared it with modern translations, no changes needed to be made. Also, the few "passages" that weren't in earlier manuscripts==>This is not a very convincing argument. If anyone on wikipedia who writes these articles knew historical context they would realize where the discrepancy comes into play. When scribes would copy the scripture, they would right in explanatory notes in the margin and eventually they were incorporated into the text by mistake. --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me &#39;Cal&#39;) 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

prove it you duch. Archeologists said the dead sea scrolls werent recoppies not idiots so stop being a martyer and accapt the facts. The bible was edited by the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you know 5ptcalvinist was Dutch... or were you saying they are of the anatidae family? Either way, please keep replies on-topic and avoid things that could be considered of a personal nature in the future.
 * I don't know how the church would be involved in editing Jewish scripture, either. I think many of the Jewish faith would probably take offense at the insinuation that the Christian church has control over their scripture and the ability to edit it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)