Talk:Bible

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bible article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Bible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Contents

[edit] 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? — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

The following comment was left on my talk page:

Blanchardb, culling the links is a good thing, and I agree with the activity. A lot of people get defensive over which links should be on a page. However, the link I provided actually makes almost all other links redundant, itself being of more useful in allowing comparisons between the many versions. It has many versions of the bible on one site. Did you explore the link before removing it? If anything, links to other specific versions should be removed in favor of the unbound.com site. Check it out and let me know what you think. We can continue this conversation on the talk page if you feel there is merit. --Fcsuper (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I do anything, I want to know whether there is consensus to insert this particular link. The article does not belong to only Fcsuper and I. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The link in question is The Unbound Bible. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked over it briefly, and it does look like a useful link. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The real question is, is it redundant? --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it redundant in that there are already five ELs of Bible translations? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The number of translations in foreign languages provided by that site is quite interesting. I say this one is a keeper. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the link to The Unbound Bible, however, I noticed that some of the translations were not showing up. Anyone else have any problems with the links? I also, was curious about a different link for the translations, BibleGateway. It provides over 50 Bible translations in 35 languages and includes links to download them as pdf, text, or audio files. I thought this might be a more relavent link. Let me know what you think. --Matthew.cates (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 [2] 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? OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Burner0718 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)

Y 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)

[edit] 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).TalkHelp 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. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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•