Wikipedia

Talk:Bible

Former featured article candidate 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
October 29, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate



Rfc at Bible and violence please comment [ edit ]

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Peshitta [ edit ]

Peshitta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition. Religious affiliation with Syriac Christianity. This form of the bible should get a mention in the Christian Bible section. Doremon764 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if Peshitta should be under Christian Bible or treated as the Septuagint.Doremon764 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the views section is kinda biased [ edit ]

That section mentions how other religions and how critics of Christianity view the Bible. I have no issue mentioning what those groups of people think of the Bible but, let’s not pretend Christians and other Christian denominations have their own interpretations and views of the Bible.

It just seems really biased to them the critics without mentioning what believers thought.

Also seriously “provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible:“

That just sounds like an excuse to quote what a certain individual thinks. CycoMa (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The quote is neither puff nor unduly bashing the Bible: it is a fairly neutral evaluation of the role of the Bible during human history. The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s fair, it was my mistake to remove that quote. But, there was no need to remove the part where I added what Baptist’s thought.CycoMa (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Also, the statement you made that "The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive." is a little problematic itself.
Here is the thing about good and evil, it is merely something we humans created. What is considered good differs from culture to culture. The Aztecs thought sacrificing people to their gods was morally righteous. And even some modern-day cultures think hanging homosexuals is morally righteous. Nothing in nature said that rape was okay or not. CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu. And the Bible is not against rape: it has instructions upon how to rape women prisoners of war. Catholics considered these instructions Word of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay I think you have no idea what and why I edited the views section. Because we are going on tangents. CycoMa (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Little change of title request [ edit ]

Hi there. Not very much important nor relevant, but it would be a little bit better if the title was "The Holy Bible" rather than "Bible" alone. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.157.80 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done See WP:RNPOV. We are a religiously neutral, secular encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
While I concur, and think no change is needed, this does bring up an interesting point: "Bible", broadly speaking, can refer to any religious scripture, not just the Christian/Jewish one (per Merriam-Webster), and "bible" to any book or tract considered authoritative on a given subject. "Holy" could be used to (partially) disambiguate without indicating an endorsement by WP - since that is its cover title in a majority of cases. That said, the colloquial use of "Bible" seems unambiguous here, at least for western cultures, and a redirect is already set up, so I still wouldn't change it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
That is what the hatnote and disambiguation page are for. "Bible" is the correct name for this article per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. the term as used is widely recognised) and WP:NPOV (i.e. we don't make a POV judgement about it being 'holy').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You should do some research about it. I do believe that "The Holy Bible" is the original title of the book rather than "Bible" alone. And it's not something about POV nor adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.80.188.218 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of more than 60 books (some variations between churches) written in three different languages, during a period spanning several hundred years (possible over 1000 years). As such, it doesn't have an "original title". Jeppiz (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
What is this?