![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Aleksandr Sigalov is requesting that his translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch be treated as a reliable source on Wikipedia. He has requested input from other editors, and started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard: here. The first reviewer there stated that they could use some more input from some readers who have a good knowledge of the Bible. I thought maybe we could find some here at this project page. If you're interested in looking into this and providing outside opinions click the link. Alephb ( talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I went to My Cup Runneth Over looking for information about the biblical quote, and instead found an article that's almost entirely about songs and popular culture. I also found a comment on Talk:My Cup Runneth Over making the same comment, ten years ago! It would be great if somebody could write an article about the quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Bible.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Bible, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added messages to the talk page on the Beatitudes indicating that it would make sense if this article were in the scope of your wikiproject. Thank you if you could consider this proposal, Vorbee ( talk) 08:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone's interested, there is a Wikisource partial translation of the Bible, over at Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible.
There's some conversations occurring at Translation talk:Genesis and Translation talk:Exodus where a third opinion from someone knowledgeable (even moderately knowledgeable) about biblical Hebrew would be helpful here. The conversations are between myself an an anonymous IP -- the only two active contributors that I know of to the project. We're talking really basic stuff -- the editor I'm trying to talk to has only a partial knowledge of the vowel-points in the Hebrew Bible, but can apparently speak Modern Israeli Hebrew and thinks that this completely substitutes for any knowledge of biblical Hebrew.
For a sampling of what the new editor is brining to the table, see [1] and much more here [2].
Of course, for anyone who doesn't want to wade into this mess, there's also a number of totally untranslated sections that could use a look from anyone who knows their way around biblical Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Alephb ( talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As an electronics systems design engineer, my own understanding of the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is as follows:
1. Light is just one part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and when light was created then so were all the other forms- radio waves, heat, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. [Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Spectrum]
2. Albert Einstein discovered that Energy and Matter are related by the square of the speed of light (E=Mc^2). [Wikipedia article on Mass Energy Equivalence] Thus, light had to be created before any matter or energy could be created.
Jkaness ( talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Bible
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Over at the Tribe of Issachar, there is a disagreement about the correct way to deal with disagreements between academia and religious authorities. In the interests of not getting myself into an edit war, I thought I would see if any project members would like to take a look and see what they think. Alephb ( talk) 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Textual differences in the Bible. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look in at Rephaite and evaluate what's going on there it might be useful. We've got one of those What is Wikipedia even for sorts of discussions starting. Alephb ( talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone think maybe the time has come to start archiving this page? John Carter ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Our article Moses includes a footnote that gives various ancient Semitic languages used variously by Jews and Christians starting with Hebrew, followed by Arabic, then Greek. I would have just moved the Greek before the Arabic myself but thought this might have come up before or I might be missing something.
Is the Arabic only there because of Islam? I know there are (and have been forever) Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, but the same is true of Spanish, and the only difference I can think of is Arabic's being the language of the Quran. But since Greek was the language of both the Christian New Testament and various (most?) Jewish Second Temple texts, and was also the primary language of the Jewish diaspora for a long time (unlike Arabic, which I'm pretty sure only gained widespread use after a fair few Jews had spread throughout Europe and would have been much more likely to speak Latin or a European vernacular than Arabic), it feels to me like it has more "interfaith" relevance than Arabic.
Am I missing something?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has been subject to recent edit warring. Additional eyes are welcome. John Carter ( talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter ( talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if every single one of the titles listed at Lost work#Lost texts referenced in the Old Testament needs its own Wikipedia entry. Yes, Bible scholars have poured over every word of the Bible for centuries, so they have been name-dropped in thousands of sources, but that seems to be all she wrote (and all we can write) for most of them. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of well written articles here. However, the author's should indicate who's bible they are using. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that when I'm looking for information, such as genres of the books of the bible and I see that not all books are listed, I'm concerned. I understand that Martin Luther did not like (and removed) the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel; but they are part of biblical history. ( https://catholicexchange.com/catholic-and-protestant-bibles-what-is-the-difference).
Point being, when citing a biblical reference, tell the reader if you are using a Catholic Bible or a non-Catholic Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.183.4 ( talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Bible.
Yesterday I created The Bible and humor. Someone placed an orphan-tag on it, so I started looking for good places to link it (I noted that there´s no Religious humour, Humour doesn´t mention religion and Religion doesn´t mention humour/humor).
I looked at the Bible, and IMO "The Bible and humor" is to obscure for "see also" in that article, which brings me to the templates at the bottom of the article, where it obviously doesn´t fit either.
So my question is, would the Bible benefit from an additional template for "Biblical topics", such as Alcohol in the Bible, Ethics in the Bible, The Bible and slavery, The Bible and violence etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: now added to Template:Bible sidebar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Additions to Daniel currently includes the text They are listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. However, most Protestant Bibles exclude these passages as Biblical apocrypha
, with the last two words linked in a manner that appears to (inadvertently?) emphasize the text's status as apocryphal for "Protestant Bibles" as opposed to the "Church of England". I'm pretty sure that, in reality, Anglican (Church of Ireland, Episcopalian, etc...) bibles include these as apocrypha where other Protestant bibles exclude them as apocrypha, but I'm not a specialist and so don't want to implement the change directly on he off-chance that either I'm wrong or I'm right but am missing some reason why my change would be bad.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have any conventionalized way of marking up (or removing, or whatever) the numbers in biblical material like:
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. ... 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God...."
They're distracting and an impediment to reading, potentially even confusing. If we have a consensus to retain them, I'd like to at least minimize them in some way. But I don't want to just make up my own approach if there's something we're already doing (I wouldn't know; I almost never edit articles that require such quotes.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. In the article Deuterocanonical books, Rafaelosornio ( talk) changed information in an edit. I request that the new information be verified. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 ( talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Biblical criticism is up for peer review in preparation for Featured article review. Please come and comment. [3] Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please comment on the talk page section of the article Noah's Ark titled "Existence of the ark" as to whether the given source verifies the text. Thanks! Thinker78 ( talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If anyone can help untangle the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F, I'd be grateful. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The subject page quotes "Thorn in the flesh is a phrase of New Testament origin...". I have someone on OTRS ( ticket:2018092710005725) who says "It is found in the Old Testament in Numbers 33:55 ; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3; Ezekiel 2:6 & 28:24 which would render it as OLD Testament origin NOT NEW Testament origin" - could someone please advise? Ronhjones (Talk) 23:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Below is what I just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Conflict is WP Christianity talk pages with Bible workgroups, plus a Bible WP line.
Greetings, Today I updated 10 Christianity WP pages, removing "bible" from the christianity WP because the talk page already contains WP Bible line. The duplication is causing issues with daily assessment WP 1.0 bot.
Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
For your entertainment, ladies and gentlemen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Bible page is rated C. It has almost no scholarship in the lede. I have several reliable reference works I could use. Unfortunately, certain editors oppose the mainstream scholarly view of the Bible, and they will stonewall me if I try to do anything alone. If someone would like to work with me to add modern scholarship to the page, I would be willing to do lots of the work. I just need someone backing me up. Otherwise I just get stonewalled. Anyone feel like working on the Bible page with me? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Please comment: Talk:Tell es-Sultan.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
We are missing Genesis's we need to make more Logawinner ( talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An isp seems to have messed up things badly in May with a series of hatnotes, which say the articles use the Masoretic numbering, when in fact we are using the Septuagint/Vulgate numbering. Has there been discussion of this? Johnbod ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
″The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[13] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[14] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[b] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[15][c]″
This passage is taken directly from the article on Genesis Flood Narrative /info/en/?search=Genesis_flood_narrative
It seems that the author has not even read the passage when stating it to be contradictory to itself and hence a result of two stories "woven together". My reasoning is as follows:
First of all, context requires that all the passage be looked at and not simply selective eisegesis.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
From this preliminary knowledge the Bible states the Flood began on the date 17/2/600. If we continue forward to the next verse it states:
12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
So, again it repeats the entrance of Noah into the ark on the date 17/2/600. The length of the rain is 40 days, meaning it lasted 17/2/600 - 27/3/600.
17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
The waters are said to "prevail" upon the earth and increase, for 40 days. This clearly is restating the verse 12 40 days as the waters increase as the rain increases - a logical statement. Finally it says:
24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.
This statement is given to sum the number of days the flood continued, a separate issue from the number of days the rain fell, causing the waters to prevail in the first place.
The dates continue in the next chapter, the eighth chapter of Genesis:
3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The 150 days are stated once more and then equivocated with the date 17/7/600.
5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
Currently the dates stand: 17/2/600 - Ark Entered +40 days 27/3/600 - Rain ceases +110 days (150 - 40) 17/7/600 - The waters cease to prevail +73 days the waters abated 1/10/600 - The heads of the mountains were visible
No contradiction whatsoever.
Of course the narrative continues to state times and days passed with the accuracy only desired of in historical narrative and not from an epic. There is no poetic pleasure to an audience who hears time and time again how many numbers of days between each event. I believe the current article to be in error with the bold assumptions made by its author and I hope this will be fixed, many thanks, Yasshur Yasshur ( talk) 03:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute concerning newly created template Monarchy of Ancient Israel ( see discussion), but as the discussion was progressing, it had me contemplating on the issues with older templates Kings of Israel and Kings of Judah. Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel ( Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria).
On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Reading all the comments, I support the removal of Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah, and the replacement with Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Very appreciate the works by JudeccaXIII and Debresser concerning this. Peace. JohnThorne ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The article Gospel could do with a little help. It currently contains some contentious claims that are stated as fact, and any attempt to change them being opposed. Some extra eyes would be welcome. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently the main problems are that the "content' section describes virtually nothing about the content of the Gospels, but instead focusses almost entirely on the discrepancies between the gospels. I believe both should be there. It also completely lacks any description of the significance of the Gospels to Christianity. A person could read this article and come away with absolutely no idea of what is in the Gospels, or why they are important to Christians. We should absolutely explain why the texts are important to Christians in an NPOV way. (There is also one person seriously arguing that all talk of the significance of the Gospels in Christian doctrine be disallowed.) DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I noticed in many Biblical articles, there is an inconsistency in citing Bible references - sometimes linking to Wikisource and sometimes to the Bible Gateway website. Is there a preference for one or the other? Each source seems equally reliable. Skelta ( talk) 05:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care. Just many more Americans are simply more familiar with the KJV when using the Bible. No other book has had quite an influence in the history of the world. So much so, that nearly every day one unintentionally references the KJV in normal conversation. Edding24 ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It's Edding24 ( talk · contribs). Their rationale seems to be "I have edited the translation, not only because the King James Bible is more accurately translated and more beautifully written, but because Americans and English culture is simply more familiar and more accustomed to the style of the great King James Bible." - seems a bit like the KJ only movement. Is this ok? We can just go through and change to our favorite version? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the rationale for picking any translation in a Wikipedia article? Edding24 ( talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm ( talk) 02:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
At Aaron [1] goes to the Ukrainian Bible [2] to the Maori. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there some form of consensus on how Psalms with different numberings due to variants between the Vulgate/Hebrew numbering schemes should be given in article text? It seems excessive to refer to Psalm 112 (111) each and every time it appears in the text. RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Could someone revert [4]? I have exhausted my reverts for today at Saul. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 02:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning a name like Yahuwéh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.189.216.21 ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I have significantly changed Module:Bibleverse which implements {{ Bibleverse}}. The main changes were fixes for the links to a couple of sites. Another change is that the template now displays Template:Bibleverse with invalid book for articles in Category:Pages with Bible version errors to make it easier for people to notice and fix problems. Further explanations are at Template talk:Bibleverse#Bibleverse update. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Vulgate manuscripts has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Veverve (
talk)
13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Lord's Prayer § NRSV.
Elizium23 (
talk)
00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a requested move at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)#Requested_move_15_October_2020. Jerm ( talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Your input would be very welcome here: Talk:Ten Commandments#KJV_->_NIV ImTheIP ( talk) 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I encountered the above brief stub on a Canaanite at the time of Nahor, son of Serug while patrolling expired drafts. It was contributed as the sole edit of its creator, and seems unlikely to be improved further. Is anyone here interested in adopting it? Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a name request to move article name Laszlo Bathory to László Báthory, who was the first translator of the Bible, into Hungarian on the subject's talkpage. Feel free to share your opinion. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Enoch (son of Cain) 22,793 759 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there any systematic information in Wikipedia about the differing order of books in versions (Masoretic, Septuagint, etc.) of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)? I haven't found anything, although a few articles do mention the existence of ordering differences. I propose that we start an article on this topic, provisionally "Book order in the Hebrew Bible". Any thoughts? Any offers? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 10:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to " Jesus and the woman taken in adultery" article. The article is extremely biased and its main section is completely dedicated to apologetics.
Statements like "Some "experts" have also falsely claimed that no Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 1100s." or "Many modern textual critics have ignored the early church evidence that is available and have speculated that" undermine the entire modern scholarship and are out of place in encyclopedic entry. Views of the modern scholars are not represented in any form other than such grotesque strawmans as above.
Asocjates ( talk) 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Non-canonical,
Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dhruva Gamerx seems to be WP:RANDY. They have edited Edict of Milan introducing WP:CB. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a default version of the Bible that Wikipedia uses or is it down to an editor's choice? Bermicourt ( talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that in articles specifically talking about the Jewish bible (the Tanakh, not the Old Testament), there were parts that were obviously written from a Christian standpoint. For instance, "Song of Solomon" was being used instead of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations of Jeremiah" was being used instead of "Lamentations". No Jew (from my experience) has ever used these terms. I looked a bit deeper into it, and the term "Song of Solomon" is uncommon in Judaism because it is not a Jewish phrase. Any thoughts? Painting17 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I have created Military activity in the Old Testament, but it is in more or less alphabetic order of the articles, rather than either order of coverage in the OT, or estimated chronological order of the events themselves. Someone who knows more about this aspect can order them accordingly, if they so desire. BD2412 T 01:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
At WP:RSN#Religious publishers, I've raised a question about religious publishers versus academic publishers for biblical scholarship topics. This affects many articles, and I'd welcome editors' input. Thanks, Levivich block 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Have you seen the recent edits by Treetoes023? What do you think? tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to help with this project i just don't know how to start most of the stubs and starts seem fine just short and i'm not sure what could be added CrazyEyeOah ( talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
hi there, just to inform you you're not the only one.please if you've gotten it please tell me Vaughn Alex ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnalex ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Your comments and input on proposed changes to the lead section of the Psalms article would be appreciated at Talk:Psalms#Proposed_changes_to_the_Lead.
-- Chefallen ( talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rachel#Requested move 24 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material Works 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
After a brief Q&A at Talk:Saul#Why_the_infobox, dates have been removed from infoboxes on kings of Israel. [5] I am not sure whether there was sufficient consensus for these edits. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Aleksandr Sigalov is requesting that his translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch be treated as a reliable source on Wikipedia. He has requested input from other editors, and started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard: here. The first reviewer there stated that they could use some more input from some readers who have a good knowledge of the Bible. I thought maybe we could find some here at this project page. If you're interested in looking into this and providing outside opinions click the link. Alephb ( talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I went to My Cup Runneth Over looking for information about the biblical quote, and instead found an article that's almost entirely about songs and popular culture. I also found a comment on Talk:My Cup Runneth Over making the same comment, ten years ago! It would be great if somebody could write an article about the quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Bible.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Bible, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added messages to the talk page on the Beatitudes indicating that it would make sense if this article were in the scope of your wikiproject. Thank you if you could consider this proposal, Vorbee ( talk) 08:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone's interested, there is a Wikisource partial translation of the Bible, over at Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible.
There's some conversations occurring at Translation talk:Genesis and Translation talk:Exodus where a third opinion from someone knowledgeable (even moderately knowledgeable) about biblical Hebrew would be helpful here. The conversations are between myself an an anonymous IP -- the only two active contributors that I know of to the project. We're talking really basic stuff -- the editor I'm trying to talk to has only a partial knowledge of the vowel-points in the Hebrew Bible, but can apparently speak Modern Israeli Hebrew and thinks that this completely substitutes for any knowledge of biblical Hebrew.
For a sampling of what the new editor is brining to the table, see [1] and much more here [2].
Of course, for anyone who doesn't want to wade into this mess, there's also a number of totally untranslated sections that could use a look from anyone who knows their way around biblical Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Alephb ( talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As an electronics systems design engineer, my own understanding of the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is as follows:
1. Light is just one part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and when light was created then so were all the other forms- radio waves, heat, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. [Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Spectrum]
2. Albert Einstein discovered that Energy and Matter are related by the square of the speed of light (E=Mc^2). [Wikipedia article on Mass Energy Equivalence] Thus, light had to be created before any matter or energy could be created.
Jkaness ( talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Bible
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Over at the Tribe of Issachar, there is a disagreement about the correct way to deal with disagreements between academia and religious authorities. In the interests of not getting myself into an edit war, I thought I would see if any project members would like to take a look and see what they think. Alephb ( talk) 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Textual differences in the Bible. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look in at Rephaite and evaluate what's going on there it might be useful. We've got one of those What is Wikipedia even for sorts of discussions starting. Alephb ( talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone think maybe the time has come to start archiving this page? John Carter ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Our article Moses includes a footnote that gives various ancient Semitic languages used variously by Jews and Christians starting with Hebrew, followed by Arabic, then Greek. I would have just moved the Greek before the Arabic myself but thought this might have come up before or I might be missing something.
Is the Arabic only there because of Islam? I know there are (and have been forever) Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, but the same is true of Spanish, and the only difference I can think of is Arabic's being the language of the Quran. But since Greek was the language of both the Christian New Testament and various (most?) Jewish Second Temple texts, and was also the primary language of the Jewish diaspora for a long time (unlike Arabic, which I'm pretty sure only gained widespread use after a fair few Jews had spread throughout Europe and would have been much more likely to speak Latin or a European vernacular than Arabic), it feels to me like it has more "interfaith" relevance than Arabic.
Am I missing something?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has been subject to recent edit warring. Additional eyes are welcome. John Carter ( talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter ( talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if every single one of the titles listed at Lost work#Lost texts referenced in the Old Testament needs its own Wikipedia entry. Yes, Bible scholars have poured over every word of the Bible for centuries, so they have been name-dropped in thousands of sources, but that seems to be all she wrote (and all we can write) for most of them. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of well written articles here. However, the author's should indicate who's bible they are using. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that when I'm looking for information, such as genres of the books of the bible and I see that not all books are listed, I'm concerned. I understand that Martin Luther did not like (and removed) the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel; but they are part of biblical history. ( https://catholicexchange.com/catholic-and-protestant-bibles-what-is-the-difference).
Point being, when citing a biblical reference, tell the reader if you are using a Catholic Bible or a non-Catholic Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.183.4 ( talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Bible.
Yesterday I created The Bible and humor. Someone placed an orphan-tag on it, so I started looking for good places to link it (I noted that there´s no Religious humour, Humour doesn´t mention religion and Religion doesn´t mention humour/humor).
I looked at the Bible, and IMO "The Bible and humor" is to obscure for "see also" in that article, which brings me to the templates at the bottom of the article, where it obviously doesn´t fit either.
So my question is, would the Bible benefit from an additional template for "Biblical topics", such as Alcohol in the Bible, Ethics in the Bible, The Bible and slavery, The Bible and violence etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: now added to Template:Bible sidebar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Additions to Daniel currently includes the text They are listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. However, most Protestant Bibles exclude these passages as Biblical apocrypha
, with the last two words linked in a manner that appears to (inadvertently?) emphasize the text's status as apocryphal for "Protestant Bibles" as opposed to the "Church of England". I'm pretty sure that, in reality, Anglican (Church of Ireland, Episcopalian, etc...) bibles include these as apocrypha where other Protestant bibles exclude them as apocrypha, but I'm not a specialist and so don't want to implement the change directly on he off-chance that either I'm wrong or I'm right but am missing some reason why my change would be bad.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have any conventionalized way of marking up (or removing, or whatever) the numbers in biblical material like:
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. ... 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God...."
They're distracting and an impediment to reading, potentially even confusing. If we have a consensus to retain them, I'd like to at least minimize them in some way. But I don't want to just make up my own approach if there's something we're already doing (I wouldn't know; I almost never edit articles that require such quotes.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. In the article Deuterocanonical books, Rafaelosornio ( talk) changed information in an edit. I request that the new information be verified. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 ( talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Biblical criticism is up for peer review in preparation for Featured article review. Please come and comment. [3] Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please comment on the talk page section of the article Noah's Ark titled "Existence of the ark" as to whether the given source verifies the text. Thanks! Thinker78 ( talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If anyone can help untangle the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F, I'd be grateful. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The subject page quotes "Thorn in the flesh is a phrase of New Testament origin...". I have someone on OTRS ( ticket:2018092710005725) who says "It is found in the Old Testament in Numbers 33:55 ; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3; Ezekiel 2:6 & 28:24 which would render it as OLD Testament origin NOT NEW Testament origin" - could someone please advise? Ronhjones (Talk) 23:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Below is what I just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Conflict is WP Christianity talk pages with Bible workgroups, plus a Bible WP line.
Greetings, Today I updated 10 Christianity WP pages, removing "bible" from the christianity WP because the talk page already contains WP Bible line. The duplication is causing issues with daily assessment WP 1.0 bot.
Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
For your entertainment, ladies and gentlemen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Bible page is rated C. It has almost no scholarship in the lede. I have several reliable reference works I could use. Unfortunately, certain editors oppose the mainstream scholarly view of the Bible, and they will stonewall me if I try to do anything alone. If someone would like to work with me to add modern scholarship to the page, I would be willing to do lots of the work. I just need someone backing me up. Otherwise I just get stonewalled. Anyone feel like working on the Bible page with me? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Please comment: Talk:Tell es-Sultan.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
We are missing Genesis's we need to make more Logawinner ( talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An isp seems to have messed up things badly in May with a series of hatnotes, which say the articles use the Masoretic numbering, when in fact we are using the Septuagint/Vulgate numbering. Has there been discussion of this? Johnbod ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
″The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[13] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[14] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[b] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[15][c]″
This passage is taken directly from the article on Genesis Flood Narrative /info/en/?search=Genesis_flood_narrative
It seems that the author has not even read the passage when stating it to be contradictory to itself and hence a result of two stories "woven together". My reasoning is as follows:
First of all, context requires that all the passage be looked at and not simply selective eisegesis.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
From this preliminary knowledge the Bible states the Flood began on the date 17/2/600. If we continue forward to the next verse it states:
12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
So, again it repeats the entrance of Noah into the ark on the date 17/2/600. The length of the rain is 40 days, meaning it lasted 17/2/600 - 27/3/600.
17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
The waters are said to "prevail" upon the earth and increase, for 40 days. This clearly is restating the verse 12 40 days as the waters increase as the rain increases - a logical statement. Finally it says:
24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.
This statement is given to sum the number of days the flood continued, a separate issue from the number of days the rain fell, causing the waters to prevail in the first place.
The dates continue in the next chapter, the eighth chapter of Genesis:
3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The 150 days are stated once more and then equivocated with the date 17/7/600.
5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
Currently the dates stand: 17/2/600 - Ark Entered +40 days 27/3/600 - Rain ceases +110 days (150 - 40) 17/7/600 - The waters cease to prevail +73 days the waters abated 1/10/600 - The heads of the mountains were visible
No contradiction whatsoever.
Of course the narrative continues to state times and days passed with the accuracy only desired of in historical narrative and not from an epic. There is no poetic pleasure to an audience who hears time and time again how many numbers of days between each event. I believe the current article to be in error with the bold assumptions made by its author and I hope this will be fixed, many thanks, Yasshur Yasshur ( talk) 03:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute concerning newly created template Monarchy of Ancient Israel ( see discussion), but as the discussion was progressing, it had me contemplating on the issues with older templates Kings of Israel and Kings of Judah. Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel ( Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria).
On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Reading all the comments, I support the removal of Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah, and the replacement with Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Very appreciate the works by JudeccaXIII and Debresser concerning this. Peace. JohnThorne ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The article Gospel could do with a little help. It currently contains some contentious claims that are stated as fact, and any attempt to change them being opposed. Some extra eyes would be welcome. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently the main problems are that the "content' section describes virtually nothing about the content of the Gospels, but instead focusses almost entirely on the discrepancies between the gospels. I believe both should be there. It also completely lacks any description of the significance of the Gospels to Christianity. A person could read this article and come away with absolutely no idea of what is in the Gospels, or why they are important to Christians. We should absolutely explain why the texts are important to Christians in an NPOV way. (There is also one person seriously arguing that all talk of the significance of the Gospels in Christian doctrine be disallowed.) DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I noticed in many Biblical articles, there is an inconsistency in citing Bible references - sometimes linking to Wikisource and sometimes to the Bible Gateway website. Is there a preference for one or the other? Each source seems equally reliable. Skelta ( talk) 05:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care. Just many more Americans are simply more familiar with the KJV when using the Bible. No other book has had quite an influence in the history of the world. So much so, that nearly every day one unintentionally references the KJV in normal conversation. Edding24 ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It's Edding24 ( talk · contribs). Their rationale seems to be "I have edited the translation, not only because the King James Bible is more accurately translated and more beautifully written, but because Americans and English culture is simply more familiar and more accustomed to the style of the great King James Bible." - seems a bit like the KJ only movement. Is this ok? We can just go through and change to our favorite version? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the rationale for picking any translation in a Wikipedia article? Edding24 ( talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm ( talk) 02:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
At Aaron [1] goes to the Ukrainian Bible [2] to the Maori. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there some form of consensus on how Psalms with different numberings due to variants between the Vulgate/Hebrew numbering schemes should be given in article text? It seems excessive to refer to Psalm 112 (111) each and every time it appears in the text. RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Could someone revert [4]? I have exhausted my reverts for today at Saul. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 02:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning a name like Yahuwéh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.189.216.21 ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I have significantly changed Module:Bibleverse which implements {{ Bibleverse}}. The main changes were fixes for the links to a couple of sites. Another change is that the template now displays Template:Bibleverse with invalid book for articles in Category:Pages with Bible version errors to make it easier for people to notice and fix problems. Further explanations are at Template talk:Bibleverse#Bibleverse update. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Vulgate manuscripts has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Veverve (
talk)
13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Lord's Prayer § NRSV.
Elizium23 (
talk)
00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a requested move at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)#Requested_move_15_October_2020. Jerm ( talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Your input would be very welcome here: Talk:Ten Commandments#KJV_->_NIV ImTheIP ( talk) 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I encountered the above brief stub on a Canaanite at the time of Nahor, son of Serug while patrolling expired drafts. It was contributed as the sole edit of its creator, and seems unlikely to be improved further. Is anyone here interested in adopting it? Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a name request to move article name Laszlo Bathory to László Báthory, who was the first translator of the Bible, into Hungarian on the subject's talkpage. Feel free to share your opinion. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Enoch (son of Cain) 22,793 759 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there any systematic information in Wikipedia about the differing order of books in versions (Masoretic, Septuagint, etc.) of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)? I haven't found anything, although a few articles do mention the existence of ordering differences. I propose that we start an article on this topic, provisionally "Book order in the Hebrew Bible". Any thoughts? Any offers? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 10:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to " Jesus and the woman taken in adultery" article. The article is extremely biased and its main section is completely dedicated to apologetics.
Statements like "Some "experts" have also falsely claimed that no Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 1100s." or "Many modern textual critics have ignored the early church evidence that is available and have speculated that" undermine the entire modern scholarship and are out of place in encyclopedic entry. Views of the modern scholars are not represented in any form other than such grotesque strawmans as above.
Asocjates ( talk) 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Non-canonical,
Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dhruva Gamerx seems to be WP:RANDY. They have edited Edict of Milan introducing WP:CB. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a default version of the Bible that Wikipedia uses or is it down to an editor's choice? Bermicourt ( talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that in articles specifically talking about the Jewish bible (the Tanakh, not the Old Testament), there were parts that were obviously written from a Christian standpoint. For instance, "Song of Solomon" was being used instead of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations of Jeremiah" was being used instead of "Lamentations". No Jew (from my experience) has ever used these terms. I looked a bit deeper into it, and the term "Song of Solomon" is uncommon in Judaism because it is not a Jewish phrase. Any thoughts? Painting17 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I have created Military activity in the Old Testament, but it is in more or less alphabetic order of the articles, rather than either order of coverage in the OT, or estimated chronological order of the events themselves. Someone who knows more about this aspect can order them accordingly, if they so desire. BD2412 T 01:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
At WP:RSN#Religious publishers, I've raised a question about religious publishers versus academic publishers for biblical scholarship topics. This affects many articles, and I'd welcome editors' input. Thanks, Levivich block 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Have you seen the recent edits by Treetoes023? What do you think? tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to help with this project i just don't know how to start most of the stubs and starts seem fine just short and i'm not sure what could be added CrazyEyeOah ( talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
hi there, just to inform you you're not the only one.please if you've gotten it please tell me Vaughn Alex ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnalex ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Your comments and input on proposed changes to the lead section of the Psalms article would be appreciated at Talk:Psalms#Proposed_changes_to_the_Lead.
-- Chefallen ( talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rachel#Requested move 24 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material Works 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
After a brief Q&A at Talk:Saul#Why_the_infobox, dates have been removed from infoboxes on kings of Israel. [5] I am not sure whether there was sufficient consensus for these edits. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |