User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/March

CS1 error on Abraham
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Abraham, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F0%7CWP:Sandbox%5D%5D Ask for help])

CS1 error on Abraham
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Abraham, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL" error. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F0%7CWP:Sandbox%5D%5D Ask for help])

Lamech's wifes Adah and Zillah, references
Hi Tgeorgescu, thank you for your notice. Concerning missing references: I have used the contents of the article itself. According German Wikipedia (i.e. not from me) the interpretation of "(The Lord's) Shadow" in this context is "(The Lord's) Shelter". What is not only making sense but also was common practice in the ancient parts of the bible. The English Wikipedia article refers to secondary literature like the Midrash and draws conclusions from that, what is ok. But I think the original text should be used first and only then secondary literature should to be used.

This is the reason why I have inserted this section only referring to the names of the 2 wifes, i.e. the references are the Hebrew names Adah and Zillah as this is the only biblean reference available. And then of course unchanged by me followed up by the interpretations of secondary literature. Concerning the destiny of unmarried women in a Patriarchy, please also see reference https://www.gotquestions.org/Deutsch/polygamie.html, which is in German and probably not suited for the English Wikipedia.

Best regards, Ralfkannenberg (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Here you have to WP:CITE WP:RS. The website gotquestions.org is by far not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tgeorgescu, it is not about the website gotquestions.org which I have only provided as an example. WP:CITE is not required as its content concerning polygamy is common theological consens.
 * I am talking about primary literature and secondary literature, and the bible itself in this case is the primary literature. What the secondary literature like the Midrash is telling may be interesting but unfortunately is inconsistent to other biblean episodes about polygamy. I do not qualify the contents of the secondary literature about the bible; these are very important works, but usually additions and interpretations in order to emphasize some aspects written in the bible, possibly for some religious community of these days or similar. Furthermore this secondary literature has not been included to the bible for good reasons.
 * It is not my purpose to get rid of the secondary literature in the article, but its contents is misleading and therefore requires beforehand some interpretation from the primary literature, i.e. the bible itself. As these early Genesis texts are very old there are not many hints, but some hints are provided e.g. in the names of the persons involved. And exactly this is what my additional section is about. If you want to change the verbing you are very welcome, but just excluding this additional section results in fully misleading information about polygamy in the bible. So the missing reference is the bible itself.
 * Best regards, Ralfkannenberg (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , you are not allowed to interpret the Bible by yourself. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not interpreting the bible by myself, I am just using official translations and catholic common sense. You can ask any theological person if you have doubts in that !
 * Anyway this discussion unfortunately is useless although we are talking about primary literature that you fully ignore and secondary literature that you emphasize as you can provide some citation, with the result that this article provides misleading information.
 * I will bring up this topic in the talk of the article and possibly ask for a third opinion.
 * Thank you and best regards, Ralfkannenberg (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You should know that the powers of WP:OR are against you. There is no way for the English Wikipedia to accept unsourced theological claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

why the revert
I do not understand the battle over this edit. It is absolutely accurate, and provides a more neutral POV to say that some scholars, or that critical scholars date ch40-55 to the Babylonian exile, since many, very reputable biblical scholars do not. 173.71.213.235 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have replied at Talk:Isaiah 53. Basically, those who deny the existence of Deutero-Isaiah are not mainstream Bible scholars.


 * "Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this.
 * I am very sorry, but this is ridiculous. I will stop editing it, but you cannot simply eliminate the vast majority of conservative, biblical scholars from "mainstream" by saying their position is a matter of faith.  Just because a liberal biblical scholar says something is true doesn't make the views of conservative scholars any less legitimate.  Unless you can provide actual, verifiable evidence for a late date to any part of Isaiah, this remains one view among many that are legitimate.  But since you clearly are not interested in actual neutrality, I will relent. Pastorfish (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not "neutral" between history and pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)