Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 252269145 by 67.71.57.175 (talk)
←Replaced content with 'the bible is a rabbit it sniffs and eats'
Line 1: Line 1:
the bible is a rabbit it sniffs and eats
{{talkheader}}
{{controversial}}
{{WPB|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}}
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=B|importance=Top|core-topics-work-group = yes}}
{{Project Catholicism|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WPCalvinism/Article Scope|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Lutheranism|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WPRT2|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{LDSproject|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WPGR|class=|importance=}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
}}

{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=22:22, 15 May 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bible/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=53383710

|action2=AFD
|action2date=16:45, 25 October 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible
|action2result=speedy keep
|action2oldid=83659800

|action3=GAN
|action3date=23:51, 29 October 2007
|action3link=Talk:Bible#Quick-failed "good article" nomination
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=167957791

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}



{{archivebox|auto=yes}}

==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? --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Hontogaichiban|Hontogaichiban]] ([[User talk:Hontogaichiban|talk]]) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
:Hontogiachiben, I agree. Do you have sources and suggestions? <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


===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. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

===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. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


===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? --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:IceDragon64|IceDragon64]] ([[User talk:IceDragon64|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/IceDragon64|contribs]]) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:"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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not show clearly when first canon or first Bible was established.

== 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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== 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: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7158792.stm Bible put on a pinhead-size chip ]. Thanks. [[User:Mpatel|MP]] <sup>([[User_talk:Mpatel|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Mpatel|contribs]])</sup> 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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But its not the bible on a pinhead. Its just the Torah on a pinhead. [[User:Clinkophonist|Clinkophonist]] ([[User talk:Clinkophonist|talk]]) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== unprotection ==
{{tl|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). [[Special:Contributions/68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] ([[User talk:68.39.174.238|talk]]) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:I added the tag. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== See also - Amusing translations? ==

Could we link to the [http://www.lolcatbible.com Lolcatbible] somewhere under the 'See Also' section? [[User:Pappy uk|Pappy uk]] ([[User talk: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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:This effort is already mentioned in the [[Lolcat]] article. That's where your link belongs. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hm...Okay. (Ps, it could be related to the bible article because it's a pointless translation.)[[User:Pappy uk|Pappy uk]] ([[User talk: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? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk: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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The link in question is [http://unbound.biola.edu The Unbound Bible]. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::I looked over it briefly, and it does look like a useful link. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree. The real question is, is it redundant? --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Is it redundant in that there are already five ELs of Bible translations? [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk: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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Fine by me. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk: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, [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/ 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. --[[User:Matthew.cates|Matthew.cates]] ([[User talk:Matthew.cates|talk]]) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

===Swordwarrior.net===
Adding [http://www.swordwarrior.net/ SwordBible Software]. This one was inserted by an anon earlier today. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk: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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===scripture.org.ua===
Please, add the link [http://scripture.org.ua/ 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.185.225.222|12.185.225.222]] ([[User talk:12.185.225.222|talk]]) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===vbvbc.org===
I suggest to ad [http://www.vbvbc.org 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. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- 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. --[[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|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. --[[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk:MisterWing|talk]]) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::You are running up against our [[WP:NPOV|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. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk:MisterWing|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MisterWing|contribs]]) 10:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
::Wikible.org doesn't seem to meet the expectations of the external links guidelines either (see [[WP:ELNO|links to avoid #12]])- In looking at the last 500 recent changes in the last 30 days [http://en.wikible.org/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500&days=30] 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. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I agree with the [[WP:NPOV|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". --[[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk:MisterWing|talk]]) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Certainly not worth mentioning ''anywhere'' in Wikipedia. Removing right away. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- 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. --[[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk:MisterWing|talk]]) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

===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 --[[User:MisterWing|MisterWing]] ([[User talk:MisterWing|talk]]) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

===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.

==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 [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/] 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? <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

==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. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== 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.
[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]]) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:commenting deletion: soapbox doesn't have anything to do with the violence present in the bible <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ASEOR2|contribs]]) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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.[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]]) 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is better off ''without'' any discussion on that. End of discussion. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-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. [[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]]) 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:Like he said, the article is better off without any duscussion on that. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? How? By suppressing information?[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk: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. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 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.[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]]) 18:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::You might want to read the [[WP:FIRST]] before you do. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 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. '''[[User:Burner0718|<font color="red">Burner</font>]][[User talk:Burner0718|<font color="gray">0718</font>]]''' 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.[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk: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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RC-0722|RC-0722]] ([[User talk:RC-0722|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|contribs]]) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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]]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk:ASEOR2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ASEOR2|contribs]]) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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 [[User:RC-0722#MyDictionary|That's the way it is.]] '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 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 [[WP:NOR|No Original Research]] policy. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk: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. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 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.[[User:ASEOR2|ASEOR2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RC-0722#MyDictionary|Aloha]]. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="gray">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="blue">communicator</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="red">kills</font>]]</sub>''''' 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. [[User:Clinkophonist|Clinkophonist]] ([[User talk:Clinkophonist|talk]]) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I have got a stupid idea about how to find this easly!!! Read It! Duh!! :-) [[Special:Contributions/76.0.82.224|76.0.82.224]] ([[User talk:76.0.82.224|talk]]) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

{{tick}} I have added a link to [[Murder in the Bible]] in the [[The Bible#Biblical topics|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. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 07:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== 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, [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>[[User:Dendodge/Help|Help and assistance]]</sup> 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 <font color="#009000"><span style="cursor: w-resize"><b>johnmark†</b></span></font> 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Johnmarkh|Johnmarkh]] ([[User talk:Johnmarkh|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johnmarkh|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Clinkophonist|Clinkophonist]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Friendly person|Friendly Person]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== 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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

== 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? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.148.75.140|82.148.75.140]] ([[User talk:82.148.75.140|talk]]) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: 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. [[User:Tb|Tb]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 08:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

== 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.--[[Special:Contributions/24.173.26.210|24.173.26.210]] ([[User talk: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 [[Bible#Canonization|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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

== 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? [[User:PrayExtraHard|PrayExtraHard]] ([[User talk:PrayExtraHard|talk]]) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
:Only as a short disambiguation sentence, under the {{tl|main}} template. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-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)''''' [[User:PrayExtraHard|PrayExtraHard]] ([[User talk: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-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::I am pretty skeptical about any section criticizing the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. When it comes to information, this is precisely what is at stake in the section on Biblical Criticism. When it comes to ethnical guidance ... well, why would any one think that a book written a few thousand years ago be directly applicable to situations today? If we had a section on criticisms of Plato's Republic or Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, I think it would be deleted as anachronistic. Now, i well understant that the issue concerning the bible is not anachronistic because there are organized religions that claim to draw from the bible lessons for ethical behavior. And here is my point: criticisms of such use of the bible is really criticism of such religions (Judaism, Christianity, whatever). I mean, honestly, do any non-Jews and non-Christians read the Bible for ethical guidance, or even care? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:::And that's why I will accept no more than a short disambiguation. Come to think of it, "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the {{tl|main}} template. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Made the suggested change. [[User:Repentance|<font color="blue">Repentance</font>]] 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

== Additional Jewish Books? ==

As the article stands now, in the opening paragraph we find "Among some Christian traditions, the Bible includes additional Jewish books that were not accepted into the Tanakh." I'm a bit uneasy about the phrase "additional Jewish books". The deuterocanonical books this speaks of are, according to some Jews, later additions made by ancient Christians around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. They point to the fact that these books (at least some, I'm not sure about each and every one) exist only written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, and that no known Jewish community has ever accepted them in any way.

Could we rephrase this to something like, "Among some Christian traditions, the Bible includes additional books which, though coming before the New Testament books, are not accepted by Judaism." I think this might be a more neutral way of putting this. [[User:Fontwords|Fontwords]] ([[User talk:Fontwords|talk]]) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:Fontword, I agree. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of these books were in Hebrew and were used by Jews e.g. Jubilees and Enoch. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AylesburyDuck|AylesburyDuck]] ([[User talk:AylesburyDuck|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AylesburyDuck|contribs]]) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Originally written in Greek? ==

In the third paragraph of this article, we find the statement: "The Christian Bible includes the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, which were originally written in Greek...".

While most students of the Bible believe it almost certain that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, there are those who disagree. For example, there are those who produced the Bible Version "The Scriptures '08". They believe that the Bible was originally written in a Semitic language and later translated into Greek.

Especially strong is this belief in regard to Matthew. Many scholars believe it was written in Aramaic, and so perhaps it would be best to change "which were originally written in Greek", to "generally agreed to come from Greek," or something of that nature.[[User:Fontwords|Fontwords]] ([[User talk:Fontwords|talk]]) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:As long as you have a source, you are welcome to make that change. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 ==

I'm doing research for a book I'm planning on writing which is going to focus on the validity of the belief that the Old Testament is still valid for use as doctrine for today's Christianity. The only verse I'm aware of in the new testament which supposedly asserts that the Old Testament is still valid is 2 Timothy 3:16, which states (in the New International Version): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Does this verse refer specifically to the Jewish Canon or the Christian cannon at the time (which included the additional Old Tesament books now found in the Catholic Bible)? And do the words "god-breathed" which also translate I believe as "divinely inspired" assert that the text refer to is infallable or valid in the present era (whenever that is), or is the meaning more vague. If someone could help me with this research, I would appreciate it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ACO-13|ACO-13]] ([[User talk:ACO-13|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ACO-13|contribs]]) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::There are basically two ways to translate that verse: "all scripture is inspired, and is profitable" or "every scripture that is inspired is also profitable". The first assumes a specific canon for "scripture" but doesn't tell you what that assumption is. The second would account for non-canonical books that are not inspired. Both, ultimately, beg the question: which books are inspired? All Paul is saying, if anything, is that if something is inspired, then it's profitable for teaching, etc. I can offer no theological opinion, of course. But I can at least offer you this logical observation: "scripture" is undefined. And now for one more historical observation: there are a LOT of books that didn't make it into the Septuagint. In general, the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Canon in it's Septuagint translation. There are no indications of the Aprocryphal books being cited as "scripture." Jesus does cite both the Torah and Psalms as "scripture" and even adds for a citation of the Psalms that "it cannot be broken." His reference on the Sermon on the Mount to the Law and Prophets can reasonably be see as most or all of the Hebrew canon, and to this he says that not one stroke can pass away (Matthew 5:17). Be careful, however, because Peter in one place seems to equate Paul's writings as scripture. Again, I can offer no conclusions or theology here. All I can offer are some caveats for your search. I doubt you'll be able to nail anything down for anyone further than they already wish to go.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 18:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

: What that verse means depends upon your theological bias. BTW, the current Catholic Canon excludes books that were used by Early Christians, and are still part of the Orthodox Christian Canon.[[User:Pseudo daoist|jonathon]] ([[User talk:Pseudo daoist|talk]]) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

== Copyright ==

The Bible is a non-copyrighted book, should we include this in the article? [[User:Ellomate|Ellomate]] ([[User talk:Ellomate|talk]]) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

: The copyright status of the Bible depends upon which version in which language by which translator/editor one is referring to.[[User:Pseudo daoist|jonathon]] ([[User talk:Pseudo daoist|talk]]) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:There is no way to incorporate that information into the article in a way that makes it sound pertinent. If Wikipedia is to mention the copyright status of the Bible, it should be done by mentioning the status of each individual translation, and ''only'' in articles about those individual translations.

:But before you start doing that, as yourself, ''how do I incorporate that information in the article about the [[Authorized King James Version|KJV]] or the one about the [[New International Version|NIV]]?'', and ''why would people care?'' --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:: Don't get all hasty, I was just proposing it. I had no intentions on editing it in the first place. Please '''read''' the posts before you start making assumations. [[User:Ellomate|Ellomate]] ([[User talk:Ellomate|talk]]) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:: First of all, see [[Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status|this]]. [[User:Ellomate|Ellomate]] ([[User talk:Ellomate|talk]]) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

==First Paragraph==
The first paragraph of this article has the sentence:

The Christian Bible includes the same books as the Tanakh (referred to in this context as the Old Testament), but in a different order, together with specifically Christian books collectively called the New Testament.

I propose that we change "but in a different order" to "but usually in a different order." There are groups who hold to the same Jewish order and Torah, Nebiim, Kethuvim divisions. And in fact, there is some disagreement within the Jewish community as to the books of the Kethuvim. Although the Orthodox generally hold one order, some, such as the Rabbis of Mechon Mamre, hold to a different one. [[User:Fontwords|Fontwords]] ([[User talk:Fontwords|talk]]) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

:Done. The first issue of a major French translation had the OT books in the Jewish order. I know of no scholar that finds a theological issue in book order. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

==History Section==
I think this article should include a history section that includes some facts like, when was the first bible "published"; when did people decided to collect all these "stories" and put them together in one book; did the bible create religion or did religion created the bible, etc. [[User:Supaman89|Supaman89]] ([[User talk:Supaman89|talk]]) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

::[[Development of the Jewish Bible canon]], [[Development of the Old Testament canon ]],[[Development of the New Testament canon]], [[Bible Translations]], [[Jesus myth hypothesis]] are just some of the articles that begin to cover what you request.[[User:Pseudo daoist|jonathon]] ([[User talk:Pseudo daoist|talk]]) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:::+ [[Dating the Bible]] as well, which could use considerable development/expansion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it'd be nice to have them summarized in a couple of paragraphs in a History section so people wouldn't have to go to all those articles. [[User:Supaman89|Supaman89]] ([[User talk:Supaman89|talk]]) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:All we need is to summarize these articles in a few lines. I think that's a good idea. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd be pretty helpful, I'm not a bible fan myself so hopely someone who knows more about all these topics could redact the section. [[User:Supaman89|Supaman89]] ([[User talk:Supaman89|talk]]) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:: The article currently has a one or two sentence synopsis of those articles. The "See Also" section lists most of the related articles. Articles about the Canonicity of the Bible are missing. [[User:Pseudo daoist|jonathon]] ([[User talk:Pseudo daoist|talk]]) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== "the collection" versus "a collection"? ==

The current lead sentence is "The Bible is the collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity." Surely there are more than one collections of "religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity"? If so, then the unqualified definite article is inappropriate. I see two alternatives (emphasis for clarity and not in final article):

# "The Bible is ''a'' collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity"
# "The Bible is ''the XXXXXX'' collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity", where "XXXXXX" is some qualifier such as "primary", "most referred to", "best known", etc.

Being a newcomer to editing this doubtless highly charged article I don't feel comfortable making the change myself. However, I'm guessing the former phrase would be seen as pejorative to many Bible-believing readers, so I'd prefer the latter with an appropriate qualifier. Any thoughts, or editors braver than myself? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dan Griscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:Given that the wording of the lead paragraph has been changed recently, this issue is now moot. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 10:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

== Lets get this together!! ==

This is a mess -- how many projects have to be in charge of this article? This article has nothing to do with Judaism. It might very well have, under the same title, in a text-based encyclopedia such as Brittanica, but this is a digital excyclopedia within which anyone can start a new article with any title. There should be but small paragraph with its own header making reference to the fact tha Jews have their own version of the Bible (that they may claim is both original and more accurate), which they call the [[Tanach]]. So there should be two mentions of Judaism in this article, in the introductory paragraphs (perhaps making reference to this or another dispute over the integrity or origins of the Bible) and in the section on Jewish Bible (perhaps discussing both the denotation and connotation of [[Torah]] vs. [[Tanach]]) and that is all. There is no need to have the documentary hypothesis mentioned at length (more than one sentence) in every article relating to the Bible (no wikilink intended), nor to all the specifics of religion X saying 123 while religion Y says 456. This is both silly and counterproductive. All of the 5 or 6 articles relating to the Bible (again, no wikilink) are a mess because of this infighting. Let each article speak from the perspective of its supporters, rather than each article speak from all perspectives, resulting in the undermining of almost everything written everywhere. '''[[User:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">DRosenbach</span>]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Contribs</span>]])</sup> 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:This parallels a similar discussion at [[Talk:Torah]], as to whether it makes sense to have combined or different articles on [[Torah]] and [[Pentateuch]].

:I don't think it's helpful attitude for WP to allow that "this article is about this group's POV; no other POV should be admitted" (see [[POV fork]]).

:But in any case, I think this article is different, because it is the top-level article on Bible for all faiths, and will be sought out as such. IMO it's useful to have an overview of all the different traditions in one article, which can be cited or printed out as such. And the article uses summary style well to hand off to more detailed articles, on more detailed aspects.

:As it stands, this article clearly does have a lot to do with Judaism. And IMO the Jewish content should remain. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal: Change to disambig page ==

The current article is really unwieldy due to the need for maintaining NPOV and the fact that the Jewish and Christian definitions of "Bible" are so radically different.

I suggest that this page be changed to a disambiguation page pointing to [[Bible (Jewish)]] and [[Bible (Christian)]]. That way each of those articles can address the definition of Bible without having to worry about stepping on toes. And all the discussion here can be left here in history as well, with notes on the separate articles' discussion pages pointing back here for those who are interested. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''. This page is useful for understanding the relationships, and differences, among the Jewish canon and the varying Christian canons. Moreover, we already have both [[Tanakh]] and [[Hebrew Bible]], so why do we need to add [[Bible (Jewish)]]? And I feel like if we take this road, someone will eventually insist on having, instead of [[Bible (Christian)]], [[Bible (Catholic)]], [[Bible (Orthodox)]], and [[Bible (Protestant)]]. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::'''Response''': I'm not sure I understand what would be wrong with that. The fact that the same word is used for multiple concepts doesn't mean that all of those concepts should be tossed into one pot.

::But I don't think that a slippery slope argument is really pertinent. Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally different religions. It's a difference which doesn't apply to those others. While Catholics may accept the Apocrypha and Protestants not, that's relatively minor compared to the difference between the Jewish Bible and the Christian one.

::I see this as a proposal that could reduce friction, and make Wikipedia more navigable. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I guess I follow Jheald's argument above: "But in any case, I think this article is different, because it is the top-level article on Bible for all faiths, and will be sought out as such. IMO it's useful to have an overview of all the different traditions in one article, which can be cited or printed out as such." "Bible" is used of the Judeo-Christian canons, in all their multiplicity, so it is fitting that we have an article that discusses them all in one place. This is a good place to come to understand the differences among the canons, and from thence you can go to [[Tanakh]] or articles on the Christian canon for more particular information. Also, I fail to see the desirability of creating [[Bible (Jewish)]] when we already have both [[Tanakh]] and [[Hebrew Bible]]. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Strong oppose.''' Given that all 39 books of the Christian Old Testament are also regarded as canonical by Jews, having separate articles for the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible stinks of redundancy. There could be separate articles, of course, but that doesn't mean ''this'' article has to be stripped down to a dab page. The only guideline we should be taking into account to decide whether there should be separate articles for the Jewish and Christian canons is [[WP:SIZE]]. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Strong oppose.''' "Bible" basically covers a small spectrum. Protestants and Jews agree on the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. Catholics expand it a bit, and Eastern Orthodox a bit further. Most Christians agree on the New Testament, though a few groups add a book or two (like Hermas), and Revelation disappears from some lists. I think one group adds 1 Enoch to the Hebrew Bible as well. I covered that in... about three full lines. That's not a big enough divergence to need a separate article. And in fact, covering them in the same article adds value to help people see the boundaries of the different canons. Finally, as has been mentioned, Tanakh and Hebrew Bible are already covered in separate pages, as I suspect would be the Apocrypha and New Testaments.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Oppose.''' It is not needed. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] ([[User talk:SkyWalker|talk]]) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' To be frank I think it is rather absurd to think that we can accurately and informatively cover all these variations in one article. It just seems like way too much at once, especially if someone is ignorant on the subject. Perhaps this article should be used to compare them and another be used for the Christian Bible (after all the Jewish one has its own, why not have seperate Christian one.[[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 15:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:DUE]], this article should cover the Bible mainly from the Christian perspective while directing readers to the articles on the perspectives of other religions by means of appropriate links. Note also that we already have the proposed [[Bible (disambiguation)]] article for which we have a hatnote. That seems to need development. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== Need Archive Pages ==

It looks like this Talk page needs archiving. I've never set up an archive page before, so I'll let someone with experience do it. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:There were actually six archive pages, but they were not easy to see; I have provided a more visible icon, and archived talk from last year which actually took up a great deal of space. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:I reverted the automatic archival because the guidelines for automated archiving explicitly state, "Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on an article talk page." And we need to have some discussion before we can say there is a consensus. I do not object to automatic archival but I do not support it either. My reason is (1) there are long periods when there is little discussion here and no need to archive and (2) suddenly a hundred kbs of talk can occur in a few weeks on a very controversial thread. Personally I favor archiving threads only when they are concluded. The pattern of talk on this page I do not think is well-suited to automatic archiving. But if every other active editor is for it, I won't object. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::What I see that could be done is an automatic update of the archive box at the top of the page. This I believe is non-controversial and can be done with <nowiki>{{archivebox|auto=yes}}</nowiki>. instead of the detailled code we see now which needs to be updated every time we create a new archive page past the 18th. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Okay, I misunderstood your edit, and I apologize. I agree with you, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::Done. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As for automatic archival, {{user|Miszabot}} can do it according to our specifications, meaning that the age of a thread, not the overall size of the talk page, is the primary criterion that determines whether a thread is archived. In fact, the way Miszabot operates, the overall size of the talk page is ignored altogether. I propose that we set up automatic archival with the following specifications: threads that have had no activity in the past '''60 days''' are archived, and archive pages must be no larger than '''100 kbytes'''. Sensitive threads that should not be archived can be ignored by the bot simply by adding an unsigned and undated comment at the end. (This, I know from experience). --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Like I said, i won't stand in the way of any consensus. What you propose sounds reasonable to me but we need to see what others say. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

== Please explain deletion of [[WP:RS]] for archaeology ==

[[User:Blanchardb|Blanchardb]] deleted [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] from two [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with the explanation "rv material from biased sources." The [[WP:RS|reliable souces]] deleted are not biased, but distinguished archaeologists who have published their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, books, and the popular press. Professor [[Israel Finkelstein]] is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the [[Bronze Age]] and [[Iron Age]]s at [[Tel Aviv University]] and is also the co-director of excavations at [[Megiddo (place)|Megiddo]] in northern [[Israel]]. Professor [[Ze'ev Herzog]] is at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at [[Tel Aviv University]], and the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005. The deleted [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are:
:*{{ Harvard reference | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | authorlink = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | authorlink2 = Neil Asher Silberman | title = [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]] | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0743223381 | url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
:* {{ Harvard reference | last = Herzog | first = Ze'ev | authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog | title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho | publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] | year = 1999 | date = October 29, 1999 | url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
Also, even if it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please bear in mind Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" [[WP:NPOV]] policy: <blockquote><font color=darkred>All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all '''significant''' views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. <font color=red>'''''This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles'''''</font>, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". '''''The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'''''</font></blockquote> I will restore the deleted [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] from these [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If there is a good reason based upon other [[WP:RS]] or Wikipedia policy for not including this significant and highly relevant information, please explain. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::I do not have a big problem with the content of the claims. I do however think we should be looking for scholarly sources - the most reliable sources on archeology are articles published in peer-reviewed journals or books published by university presses. Surely we can find better sources for archeological claims. I also find the language of the text weird - it was inserted after discussion of how much of the Bible was written in the 7th century BCE or later, and in this context there is nothing shocking about the lack of evidence of an Israelite slavery in Egypt. Are you going to add to the article on [[The Aeneid]] that archeologists have shockingly discovered no evidence that Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your f/b. I'll go back and order the section chronologically. Also, the analogy of [[The Aeneid]] is a little off: archaeological evidence for [[Troy]], [[Carthage]], and [[Dido|Queen Dido]] is not disputed, although the ancient [[Rome|Roman]] belief that Romans are the descendants of [[Aeneus]] is easily disproven. No one believes this anymore, so archaeological relevance on [[The Aeneid]] page is slight; however, the belief that the ancient Israelites were Egyptian slaves, accepted [[monotheism]] and [[The Ten Commandments]] upon their exodus, wandered the desert, then conquered the Land of Israel and founded a great Empire—all beliefs "blatantly contradicted" by extensive and painstaking archaeological work—are still accepted by nearly everyone and are highly relevant for [[The Bible]] article. As for academic citations, these would be helpful too, but [[WP:RS]] accounts representing these collective conclusions are also appropriate, especially in a [[WP:SUMMARY]] article. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::They are not accepted by nearly everyone, I think - I think only fundamentalists and Biblical literalists really believe these things. I agree, they believe them fervently, but they are not everyone. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::More importantly, I do not think your presentation does justice to how professional archeologists work. it is true that within Israel there is a nationalist bent to the public discourse on archeology in which people expect archeologists to prove or disprove national claims. But archeologists themselves are less interessted in what they disprove than in what they can learn from the material remains of the past. Maybe Wikipedia needs a good article on Biblical archeology that can be linked to this article. But the question for archeologists - as for historians - is not whether specific events described in a work of literature actually happened, but what can we know about the world in which the people who told and listened to those stories lived? I am not an expert but I am sure there is a good deal archeologists can tell us of life in the ancient Near East during the era in question (2300-4000 years BP). What ''have'' we learned? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, there is an article on [[Biblical archaeology]] but I do not consider it to be a good one. Perhaps you can improve it. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Alas, what I know about Biblical archeology ends with R. de Vaux, Wm. Albright and G.E. Wright. Maybe we can try an article improvement drive. Surely among all Wikipedians there must be some archeologists or historians who know the current notable literature? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::The material you added is not factual. It's argumentation. Argumentation based on reliable sources, true, but still argumentation. It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative) to substantiate many parts of the biblical historical narrative. Going point by point the way you're doing is unnecessary. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, I will copy here, ''verbatim'', a paragraph from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] on the Bible, that is, the introduction of ''Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'' from [[Gleason Archer]]. {{quote|Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose that because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew.}}
So if you want an NPOV wording on the fact there is no archaeological evidence of this or that part of the Bible narrative, you must take into account Archer's position. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:Your deletion is not justified, simply because edits need not be perfect, to say nothing of [[WP:PRESERVE]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Besides, I'm not sure how much can be said to a [[Biblical inerrancy|biblical inerrantist]] like [[Gleason Archer|Archer]], but your point is well taken that the Bible is an archaeological document. Like any other such document, if you go dig a bunch of holes in an attempt to unearth confirmation of that document, but instead find that the results contradict that document, then one is compelled to certain conclusions, some stronger than others. The cited [[WP:RS]] rely mainly on stuff they dug up, or didn't dig up where and when it should have been to agree with the Bible, and the pagan record, though relevant is secondary—but even no non-Biblical record even mentions any the [[Exodus]] events, so you don't even have a case of disagreement, but one of nonexistence. Furthermore, this is a relatively recent problem for [[Biblical inerrancy|biblical inerrantist]]s (after Archer), as these archaeological conclusions have been reached in the last thirty years or so, while Israel has been busy attempting to establish an archaeological argument for their occupation of the entire [[Land of Israel]]. I'll also add that the ''[[Illiad]]'' too is a archaeological document, and arguments like Archers could be used for it too, proving nothing. For these reasons, I'm reverting your deletion. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very close to a [[WP:3RR]] violation. In addition, the following sentences in your addition are POV:
#the Israelites were never in Egypt
#did not wander in the desert
#did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign
#did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel
#there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire
#and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai
If your sources state these items that way, then your sources are biased. The way this kind of research was conducted, there can be only two conclusions, which are either
*the Bible is true, or
*the evidence is inconclusive.
I am therefore reverting your edit again. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:This is a fair representation of [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] from two [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]: even if it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" [[WP:NPOV]] policy: <blockquote><font color=darkred>All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all '''significant''' views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. <font color=red>'''''This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles'''''</font>, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". '''''The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'''''</font></blockquote> Rather than edit warring, please justify your deletion of these [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] based on Wikipedia policy. I will argue that your deletion, or perhaps suppression, of these facts violates [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPOV]] stands for ''neutral'' point of view, and that's what I'm enforcing. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted by 4 different editors on this page alone, not counting the other two pages where you added that "information". How can you still claim that your edit satisfies [[WP:NPOV]] then? --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:The other editors made constructive criticisms, which I addressed. Your deletion is unconstructive and violates [[WP:NPOV]] on its face. Read [[WP:NPOV]] again: <blockquote><font color=darkred>All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all '''significant''' views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. '''''This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles''''', and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". <font color=red>'''''The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'''''</font></font></blockquote> You just can't label significant, relevant [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] as "POV" and delete it. Please avoid [[WP:EW]], and explain your deletion of these relevant facts in terms consistent with Wikipedia policy. Without sufficient cause, you can be sure I will argue in other venues that your deletions violate [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:PRESERVE]], and possibly [[WP:Censorship]]. On the other hand, if you do have sufficient cause, I will be quick to address your concerns, as I have with others in the past. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sufficient cause for deletion. You labeled as [[WP:V|verifiable fact]] something that is really your source's conclusion. That's what makes it [[WP:POV]]. See your talk page for details. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:I agree it could have been better worded to better present it as archaeoligists' conclusions with supporting context. But all it takes to do that is a little wordsmithing. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] requires cooperating to help improve imperfect material. You can't just delete willy-nilly just because you think there's a flaw. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is one of Wikipedia's core policies. All editors are expected to abide by it, and [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] are expected to enforce it. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk:Shirahadasha|talk]]) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]], I would suggest writing your next version here on the talk page rather than directly in the article and discussing it before changing the article back and forth. That way people can propose changes that solves some of the problems. I've looked at what you added and I agree it tends to take the view that the archeologists you agree with are completely right and other views are totally wrong. This material will need to be reworded to present it as the views of the archaeologists involved without using either "vouching" or disparaging language. You can explain more about how they came to reach the conclusions they did, the acceptance those conclusions have had in the archaeological world and similar matters if you provide [[WP:RS|sources]]. But you can't present things from the perspective suggesting that simply because they're archaeologists what they say is true. See[[WP:NPOV]]. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk:Shirahadasha|talk]]) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with Shirahadasha - one major problem with Ecrasex' text is that it presents these views as right and other views as wrong. That violates NPOV. We need to be careful to identify whose views these are, i.e. not that they "are" right, but that x believes them to be right. Also, it is not enough to generalize for all archeologists. Archeologists are divided as to how they interpret the material remains. As I said above, framing this as "the Bible is wrong" does not do justice to archeology, which is not about proving or disproving the Bible but rather interpreting material remains. I acknowledge that such interpretations may have a variety of implications for how we read the Bible but again for most scholars it is not simply the Bible is right or the Bible is wrong. That said, I strongly disagree with Blanchardb's "If your sources state these items that way, then your sources are biased." if i understand him correctly. First, so what if they are biased? Let's assume that all sources are biased i.e. represent a point of view. NPOV does not call on us to provide ''no'' points of view but rather multiple points of view. Second, it does not matter whether any of us editors think the views are biased or unbiased, right or wrong. What matters is that they be ''notable'' and from ''reliable sources.'' I believe that these views are notable and belong in the article. I believe that the way they were presented in the article violated NPOV because it did not present the views acurately in the context of the larger work of the archeologists themselves, and because it overgeneralized and thus oversimplified complex debates among archeologists. Here Shirahadasha and others have constructive advice. I don't think anyone is saying that a better acount of archeological research doesn't belong in the article, even if it includes arguments by archeologists who claim that Israel did not exist as a nation until sometime before or after the founding of the kingdom - but such claims must be adequately contextualized and presented as views and not as facts. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

==Proposed text for [[WP:RS]] on Archaeology==

Per [[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]]'s suggestion above. I believe that this is a fair [[WP:NPOV]] representation of the conclusions reached by the cited archaeologists: <blockquote><font color=darkgreen>Extensive archaeological research and findings especially since the 1980s has led a consensus of several prominent archaeologists who have studied the record to reach the following conclusions: the archaeological record contradicts the Bible's main historical account given in [[Exodus]],<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/> and specifically these archaeologists conclude that the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign, did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel, there is no evidence of the existence of [[King David|David]]'s or [[King Solomon|Solomon]]'s conquests, kingdom, or vast [[United Monarchy|empire]], and Jewish [[monotheism]] appeared in the waning period of the [[United Monarchy|monarchy]] and not at [[Mount Sinai]].<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/></font></blockquote> Please provide feedback on this representaion of the [[WP:VF|verifiable facts]] given in the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]:
:*{{ Harvard reference | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | authorlink = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | authorlink2 = Neil Asher Silberman | title = [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]] | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0743223381 | url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
:* {{ Harvard reference | last = Herzog | first = Ze'ev | authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog | title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho | publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] | year = 1999 | date = October 29, 1999 | url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
[[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 02:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

::Hmm... I don't really think so.

::* "Extensive" is subjective.
::* "Consensus" of minimalists is just the view of minimalists. It would be more NPOV to simply have a section on the minimalist view, and that belongs in [[The Bible and history]], rather than in this article.
::* The list of conclusions is also unnecessary. I don't see any reason to put the views of the minimalists into this article, because it belongs in [[The Bible and history]] and [[Biblical archaeology]], but if you have to mention it, it's more than enough to say that the minimalist school of holds that no convincing evidence that would support the biblical historical narratives prior to about the 8th century CE has been found.

::-[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Let's get the terminology straight. Neither Finkelstein or Herzog are [[The Copenhagen School (theology)|minimalists]]. The minimalists, such as P.R. Davies and the Copenhagen School, question whether ''anything'' in the Bible account is reliable. In particular they question whether there was a period of monotheism ''at all'' in Israel or Judah before 587 BCE, suggesting the entire tradition is substantially shaped by the Persian culture during the exile, and only dates from centuries later.

::::That is not Finkelstein's position. He goes with the older more mainstream academic tradition, that the [[Deuteronomistic history]] in the Bible substantially reflects the ideology of the time of King [[Josiah]] (640-609 BCE); and there is material that is historically useful in the Bible at least from the story of [[Omri|Omride]] kings of Israel of the ninth century onwards, albeit presented through a very considerable ideological filter.

::::Herzog is really only saying in rather blunt terms what our article already says: there is no archaeological evidence of a conquest of the land and cities of [[Canaan]] of the kind recounted in the [[Book of Joshua]]. Finkelstein goes a bit further, noting that we now have a fairly clear picture of settlement patterns in the kingdom of Judah in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries BCE, and saying that there is no archaeological evidence for a "golden age" under David and Solomon, and that finds previously associated with a Solomonic period - eg at [[Tel Megiddo|Megiddo]] in the north - are actually later. A number of different carbon-dating surveys have subsequently been made by different teams since Finkelstein first made this thesis, and appear to support it. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 08:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

===Random breakpoint===

::I agree with Lisa's points. Particularly the third--a litany of things they don't think happened is unnecessary. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 04:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Écrasez should present the proposed text here so that we can evaluate it to make sure POV statements are not made but that the point is stated in a factual matter. There's no point going 3RR on this (and Écrasez is well within that violation right now). Give us a chance to build a consensus on this. BTW, because NPOV is non-negociable, that does not mean you can add whatever you want and expect it to be accepted without discussion. Much of your wording is POV. They are unverifiable statements. Even if you have a source that says this or that, that in and of itself is not verification. I agree that this topic should be covered briefly in this article and extensively in an archo article, but the wording needs a lot of improvement. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 04:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

===Random breakpoint===

I agree with much of the criticism above. Écrasez, you talked a lot about [[WP:NPOV]], but you are not taking into account the section of that policy under the header [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]]. Your addition mentions nothing about the opposing viewpoint (which does not come close to being dismissable per [[WP:FRINGE]]), and also I must remind you that you are presenting ''conclusions'' as fact, which they are not, and which goes against the very heart of the [[WP:NPOV]] policy. Now many people will tell you that the Bible itself gives more than enough clues why there is no archaeological evidence of the reign of David and Solomon in Jerusalem: the evidence was looted, therefore it is in Babylon, not Jerusalem, that archaeologists should be looking for such evidence (2 Kings 25:13-15). Ditto for earlier events. Furthermore, the word ''contradicts'' should not appear in your entry. As I said to you earlier, Finkelstein's data is ''inconclusive'', and you should not portray it as unquestionably pointing to a conclusion, ''even if he himself does so''. And don't mention a consensus where the "consensus" is that of one side of the issue. That gives the impression that there is no dissidence, when in fact there is unquestionably a dissidence to that "consensus". --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:You don't loot stone walls, water systems, foundations of houses, spoil tips, broken pieces of pottery etc. The evidence for Jerusalem as a significant centre is there for the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550 BCE) and the later Iron Age II (c. 750-586 BCE). But in the 10th century BCE there is next to nothing.

:In any case, the excerpt from Mazor is primarily talking about the conquest of Canaan, rather than supposedly Solomonic Jerusalem. As [[William G. Dever|Dever]] has pointed out, most of the cities destroyed by Joshua simply weren't there. It's a narrative constructed in a much later period. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::This is because what qualified as "cities" in these times were nothing like the cities built in later eras. Imagine someone comparing the biblical record with archaeology about 5000 years from now and concluding that Jerusalem did not exist in the year 1 on the grounds that there is no evidence of sprawling suburbs some 10 miles all around a city centre. Additionally, what complicates matters for archaeologists is the common middle eastern practice of rebuilding destroyed cities on top of their own rubble, often using the rubble itself as building materials. (This, in fact, has been reported to be done in <s>Ezra</s> Nehemiah 3:34.) Of course, none of what I'm discussing here, and none of what I'm responding to, should go in the article, as that would be off-topic anyway. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::This is a valuable point. Above, Lisa wrote, "It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative." But science is more complicated than this - science progresses all the time through the discovery of a "negative," it is called ''falsification.'' An archeologist can hypothesize that something existed, and design research to test that hypothesis i.e. work out diagnostic artifacts and the appropriate pattern of digging to achieve the appropriate sample; if nothing shows up, the hypothesis has been falsified. I add two things to this point: first, it is especially important to lay out the chain of research that establishes an absense (For example, if the capital of an expansionist site were situated in this location, we would find x kind of evidence. However, x kind of evidence was not discovered. Instead, y kind of evidence suggest that ...). Second, even when a hypothesis if falsified the resulting knowledge is always provisional. We can talk about a preponderance of evidence, or continued confirmation of the conclusions ... my point, as I suggested earlier, is that the views Ecrasez is pointing to should be included in the article - but put in the context of archeological debates, not just including other views but the kinds of research and evidence that support those views - and the actual conclusions they reach which go far beyond "the Bible is not historically accurate" to "this is what archeologists now believe about the politics, society, economics, culture of that period etc. In short, this section needs expansion, but good scholarship is more nuanced than what has so far been proposed. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Écrasez would be well-advised to read the Wikipedia article on [[Israel Finkelstein]] before claiming that his views represent a consensus. I'm all for presenting Finkelstein's views in the article [[Biblical archaeology]], but only if they are presented as one possible position (rather than absolute truth as was done), but, in the article [[Bible]], which is supposed to give only an overview of archaeology anyway, I think there should be no more than a passing mention withoutgetting into conclusions (either for or against). --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

===Random breakpoint===

Thank you all for your comments. I will respond briefly and propose a compromise.
#'''Extensive.''' The archaeological research is extensive: this was a major, major project in Israel to "dig up the title deeds" to the land, as is easily verifiable. So this accurate desriptor should stay in my opinion. If there's further objection, I'll cite it, but this one is real easy.
#'''Consensus.''' Finkelstein and Herzog arguably represent the '''''majority''''' consensus view of these archaeological findings, according to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. See {{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }} The list of knowledgable scholars supporting these conclusions includes:
##Lily Avitz-Singer
##Alexander Fantalkin
##Norma Franklin
##Ayelet Gilboa
##Axel Knauf
##Stefan Munger
##Nadav Na’aman
##Michael Niemann
##Tali Ornan
##Benjamin Sass
##Ilan Sharon
##Christoph Uehlinger
##David Ussishkin
##John Woodhead
##Orna Zimhoni
#which Finckelstein [http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/finkelstein.html argues] is a majority. This [[WP:RS]] should be added as a citation supporting the consensus claim.
#'''Minimalists.''' [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] addressed this. Neither Finkelstein nor Herzog are minimalists.
#'''"Litany of conclusions."''' The list of [[WP:RS]] conclusions is ''highly'' relevant to an article on the Bible. These conclusions may bother some editors, but they meet '''all''' the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]]. Not including the specifics of these conclusions would be [[WP:AWW|weasel]] and silly, frankly.
#'''More archaeological, critical context.''' I agree that this is consistent with [[WP:NPOV]], so long as it is [[WP:VF]], [[WP:RS]], not [[WP:UNDUE]], etc., and adding this to the proposed edit would be welcome by me.
#'''"Contradicts"''' This is Herzog's word, not mine. And Herzog is [[WP:RS]] and a significant view, so this stays by [[WP:NPOV]]. Please cite your own [[WP:RS]] to balance this view, if you'd like.
#'''Wikipedia article on [[Israel Finkelstein]].''' This is a wonderful example of an awful article that is almost completely unreliable, especially in the way that it misrepresents sources. For example, the article says <blockquote>[Finkelstein's] description of tenth century Jerusalem … has been strongly contested by many biblical scholars and archaeologists[3]</blockquote> yet source <nowiki>[</nowiki>[http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=352 3]<nowiki>]</nowiki> is a shallow 300-word review of Finkelstein's book appearing a [[Azure (journal)|journal specializing in Zionist history and ideas]] by Raanan Eichler, a [http://www.shalem.org.il/education/?did=21&aid=b0ae00ab05795cafe12d69c53be5d417 graduate student] at a [[Shalem Center|Jewish college specializing in Zionist history and ideas]]. This is not to say that Eichler is necessarily wrong, but it would be more convincing to cite a [[WP:RS|reliable source archaeologist]] like [[Ze'ev Herzog]], who [http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 does portray Finkelstein's conclusions] as a consensus among many prominent archaeologists. Eichler is entitled to his opinions, but offers nothing solid to back them up, and characterizing them as "strongly contested by many biblical scholars and archaeologists" is beyond the pale. The article itself should cite [[Lawrence Stager]] and a few others, which would at least be creditable. Perhaps another editor will go fix this.
#I acknowledge that the majority consensus archaeological conclusions expressed by Finkelstein and Herzog will not sit at all well with people of a [[Zionist]], [[evangelical]], or [[Biblical inerrancy|Biblical inerrantist]] bent, and their significant views should also be fairly represented in an article on the Bible; however, Finkelstein and Herzog's majority consensus conclusions are highly significant and relevant and must be fairly represented here. For those who object, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" [[WP:NPOV]] policy: <blockquote><font color=darkred>All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all '''significant''' views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. <font color=red>'''''This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles'''''</font>, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". '''''The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'''''</font></blockquote>
While I agree that other text must be added to this basic representation to fairly represent the opposition, especially those of [[Lawrence Stager]], everything I have read here indicates that the following proposed edit (with citations) is consistent in letter and spirit with all Wikipedia policies: <blockquote><font color=darkgreen>Extensive archaeological research and findings especially since the 1980s has led a majority consensus of several prominent archaeologists who have studied the record to reach the following conclusions: the archaeological record contradicts the Bible's main historical account given in [[Exodus]],<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/> and specifically these archaeologists conclude that the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign, did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel, there is no evidence of the existence of [[King David|David]]'s or [[King Solomon|Solomon]]'s conquests, kingdom, or vast [[United Monarchy|empire]], and Jewish [[monotheism]] appeared in the waning period of the [[United Monarchy|monarchy]] and not at [[Mount Sinai]].<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/></font></blockquote>
:*{{ Harvard reference | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | authorlink = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | authorlink2 = Neil Asher Silberman | title = [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]] | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0743223381 | url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
:* {{ Harvard reference | last = Herzog | first = Ze'ev | authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog | title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho | publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] | year = 1999 | date = October 29, 1999 | url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
:* {{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }}
[[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

===Random breakpoint===

Ecrasez, I am one who has called for more context but as I am not an expert in Biblical archeology, I am not the one to do it - but I think it is essential that anyone, including you, who expands this section must provide adequate context so as to comply with both NPOV and NOR. Another point: it is now evident to me that the significance of the archeological research to which you call attention has less to do with the Bible and more to do with Zionism. I respectfully suggest that you may gain more satisfaction, and contribute more to Wikipedia, by writing a good article on Nadia Abu el-Haj's research on this, as well as improving other articles on specific archeologists, archeological excavations, or notable books. In the meantime, it seems to me that none of what you have added contradicts with the very very concise account of archeology currently in the article. What we currently have is both accurate and NPOV. We shouldn't add to it in a way that compromises NPOV. And it seems to me that maintaining NPOV would require adding much more than what you propose, to the point where it would overwhelm the article itself. Which leads me to conclude that what we really need is a very good article on Biblical archeology that just links to this article. I hope you see I am trying to be constructive. It seems to me that Jheald and Ecrasez and other editors could avoid conflict, reverts, and excessive talk page discussion by working on other articles that are specifically on this topic. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:I have a basic problem with the original proposal: The source cited for the claim that Finkelstein's position is a majority view is this one: {{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }} The problem here is that this is an article by Finkelstein. One irreducible requirement, no matter [[WP:PSTS|how things are sliced]], is that no-one can be a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] on their own importance. Someone else has to review them and give an opinion on how important they are and how many other people agree with them. If a source doesn't talk about it, we can't make our own claims about a source's importance based on our own assessment, that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]. In order to say that someone represents the consensus of a field -- in order to call a person "important" or make a judgment call that throws more weight than simply calling the person a professor at a university and maybe mentioning a publication or two to establish cred - you need a [[WP:RS|reliable sourc]] that says that person is a big macher in order to claim a person is a big macher. If there's no source that says he's a towering giant and dominates the field, then Finkelstein has to be described as just a professor and his opinion as simply a professor of archaeology's opinion. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk:Shirahadasha|talk]]) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


:::(ec)Note also the article on [[Syro-Palestinian archaeology]]
:::French wikipedia has a series of articles on [[fr:Données archéologiques sur les premiers Israélites|Archaeological data on the first Israelites]], [[fr:Données archéologiques sur David et Salomon|Archaeological data on David and Solomon]], [[fr:Données archéologiques sur la conquête de Canaan|Archaeological data on the conquest of Canaan]], [[fr:Données archéologiques sur l'Exode et Moïse|Archaeological data on the Exodus and Moses]]. Perhaps these could be translated and expanded? They would also give room to set out at greater length the arguments of evangelical Biblical apologists such as [[Kenneth Kitchen]] and James Hoffmeier. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

===Random breakpoint===

:'''Proposal edit''' (rough draft still)
::Archaeological evidence does not support some of the Bible's historical accounts given in Exodus.[1][2] Specifically, accounts of Israelites in Egypt, wandering in the desert, and conquest the Land of Israel in a military campaign lack evidential support. Also unsupported are accounts regarding the land being passed on to 12 tribes of Israel, and David's or Solomon's conquests. Of particular note is that evidence suggest that Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[1][2] --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::It is not just archeological evidence - many Bible scholars argue from internal evidence and methods of comparative religion and history, that monotheism as we now know it in Judaism developed over a long time and did not take utlimate shape until the Babylonian Exile. My point is that we also need to be careful not to inflate the findings of archeology; some of these conslusions are based on diverse bodies of evidence and methods of research. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Proposal edit'''
::Although many events in the Bible narrative have found plenty of archaeological support, some, like the presence of Israelites in Egypt, the wandering in the desert, and the military conquest of Canaan have not found satisfactory support yet. [1][2] There is also no extrabilical support of the land being passed on to 12 tribes.
:I have removed the bit about the late appearance of monotheism because the Bible itself states that polytheism was omnipresent throughout the land of Israel and that worship of God has been halfhearted throughout that era, even during the reigns of David and Solomon (in fact, that's the reason why God allowed the deportation to Babylon), and Judaism, by its very nature, does not lend itself very well to archaeological support (for example, it ''forbids'' owning pretty much anything that could be regarded as an object of worship). --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Re [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] and Blanchardb's suggestion: this is not a fair [[WP:NPOV]] representation of the majority consensus, whose conclusions clearly state that the archaeological record is inconsistent with the Bible, and not merely lacking in evidential support—there is an abundance of evidence, and none of it supports the Bible's account. Also, we are discussing the section [[Bible#Archaeological and historical research]], which does not currently have a fair [[WP:NPOV]] representation of the argued majority consensus on this subject. I agree that internal analysis is appropriate, but that should live in another section. Also, about [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]'s comments on [[Zionism]] above, while this subject is tangentially relevant there, the main intellectual and practical thrust of Zionism does not rest on the Bible's veracity. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry, but you need consensus that Finkelstein's position ''does'' represent a consensus. And please do not confuse your point of view with a neutral point of view. I must admit that the fact you invoked [[WP:RS]] in your edit summary the very first time you tried to insert your information (that is, before you even knew you'd find opposition) is making me suspicious about your intentions here.--Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::'''Amendment to my proposal'''
:::...archaeological support, some ''key events'', like the presence...
::--Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Écrasez, what are your views on [[Voltaire]]? --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

: Some of the material from Écrasez could go into the article on [[Biblical archaeology‎]] which is a much better fit than in the [[Bible]] article. Facts must be properly cited (without editorializing) and conclusions must fit the facts. Specifically, the lack of proven archaeological artifacts does not prove that something did not exist nor does it prove that artifacts never will be found. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Ecrasez misses my point about Zionism. I never claimed that Zionism rests on Biblical veracity, and my comment was not intended to imply that. On the contrary, my point is that these debates among archeologists (minimalists and maximalists) are more influenced by debates about Zionism and their, and archeology's, relation to the nation-state, than by theological/religious debates or loyalties. The matter again is context. How many of these archeologists are driven ultimately to "prove" that the Bible is "right" or "wrong," and how many are driven by a desire to address claims about the historic relationship between the nation Israel and the territory where the current state of Israel is located? The above discussion suggests more the latter than the former, as does Abu el-Haj's book, which is why I think this issue is worth and article ... its own article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Moreover, Ecrasez seems to be ignoring my other point. As far as NPOV is concerned, what are the main points of view that need to be in this article. There are several, but one is that the Bible is historically accurate; another view is that it is not. My point is that there are many people who hold that the Bible is not historically accurate - certainly within the various non-Orthodox movements of Judaism as well as academia, and the reasons they have this view include archeological data but also other historical research, as well as (for some) theological discussions. In other words, this view - that the Bible is not historically accurate - did not originate with archeologists and is not an exclusively archeological view. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

===Former critic [[William G. Dever|William Dever]] now says he's a minimalist, accepts Finkelstein's conclusions===

In an interview conducted last year, archaeologist [[William G. Dever|William Dever]], one of Finkelstein's harshest critics originally, now accepts Finkelstein's conclusions that "archaeology throws [the Biblical account of [[Exodus]]] into great doubt": <blockquote><font color=darkred>“Then, about 15 years ago, in my archaeological work I began to write about ancient Israel. Originally <i>I wrote to frustrate the Biblical minimalists; then I became one of them,</i> more or less. <i>The call of Abraham, the Promise of the Land, the migration to Canaan, the descent into Egypt, the Exodus, Moses and monotheism, the Law at Sinai, divine kingship—archaeology throws all of these into great doubt.</i> My long experience in Israel and my growing uncertainty about the historicity of the Bible meant that was the end for me.”</font> (My emph.) See {{cite journal |last=Dever| first = William G. |authorlink = William G. Dever | title = Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn’t, How Scholarship Affects Scholars | journal = Biblical Archaeology Review | month=March/April | year = 2007 | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 54 | url = http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/other/5106losingfaith.pdf }} </blockquote> This [[WP:RS]] citation and the Finkelstein's response to Dever's original criticism cited above (in which he enumerates a long list of other supporters) should put to rest any reasonable doubt that Finkelstein's and Herzog's stated conclusions represent the majority consensus in their field about the Biblical account of the events in [[Exodus]]. For those who missed it above, see {{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }}, which includes list of knowledgeable scholars supporting Finkelstein's conclusions: Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, Orna Zimhoni.<br/> A fair [[WP:NPOV]] representation of these conclusions must appear in Wikipedia's Bible article (as well as other related articles). I propose a merger of previous proposals: <blockquote><font color=darkgreen>Extensive archaeological evidence[1][2][3][4] has led a majority consensus of prominent archaeologists[1][2][3][4] to conclude that "archaeology throws [the Biblical account of [[Exodus]]] into great doubt."[4] Specifically, accounts of [[Exodus#Bondage in Egypt|Israelite bondage in Egypt]], wandering in the desert, and conquest the Land of Israel in a military campaign are not supported by archaeological evidence.[1][2][4] Also unsupported are accounts of the [[Land of Israel]] being passed on to the [[Israelites|12 tribes of Israel]], and [[King David|David]]'s and [[King Solomon|Solomon]]'s conquests and vast [[United Monarchy|empire]].[1][2][4] Of particular note is that the archaeological evidence indicates that Jewish [[monotheism]] appeared in the waning period of the [[United Monarchy|monarchy]] and not at [[Biblical Mount Sinai|Mount Sinai]].[1][2][4]</font></blockquote>
#{{ Harvard reference | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | authorlink = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | authorlink2 = Neil Asher Silberman | title = [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]] | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0743223381 | url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
#{{ Harvard reference | last = Herzog | first = Ze'ev | authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog | title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho | publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] | year = 1999 | date = October 29, 1999 | url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
#{{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }}
#{{cite journal |last=Dever| first = William G. | authorlink = William G. Dever | title = Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn’t, How Scholarship Affects Scholars | journal = Biblical Archaeology Review | month=March/April | year = 2007 | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 54 | url = http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/other/5106losingfaith.pdf }}
[[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:Again, this discussion still seems more relevant on the talk page of some archeology article. it is within an archeology article that the different points of view of archeologists is an issue. In this article, what is important are the different views of the Bible. This article already makes it clear that there are many people who reject the Bible as an historical document. It is enough to say that they do so because of the findings of textual critics, historians, and yes, archeologists. But that is the appropriate context for this article.

:There should be archeology articles that explore in-depth the research by archeologists. In such articles I would expect that articles or books by Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, and Orna Zimhoni - not an article ''mentioning'' them, but things ''they themselves'' have published.

:By the way, if English is not your native language you would not know this but you can't say "majority consensus." The two words mean different things. You may well have a strong case for claims about the prevailing majority. just say that, then, and don't mix it up with "concensus" please. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::If you are attempting to imply that these facts aren't highly significant for Wikipedia's Bible article, well, that's just laughable. But I do agree that these facts are also highly relevant for several other Wikipedia articles too. As for the publications of the cited scholars, see {{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }} And English is my first language, which is how I am familiar with the [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22majority%20consensus%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn standard English usage and meaning of the phrase "majority consensus"] (not "concensus" [''sic'']). [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:::This seems like a perfect example of when faith meets science. I cannot see how it should not be used in the article. These current findings cast significant doubt on the factual basis of the Bible. Faith exists outside of science and just because many people have faith in the Bible does not mean we should not talk about its shortcomings. Ecrasez might be offensive in his use of language, but he has reputable references on his side and his edit is directly related to the topic of this article. --[[Special:Contributions/67.183.129.82|67.183.129.82]] ([[User talk:67.183.129.82|talk]]) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:I am not implying that these facts are not significant for the article on the Bible, but given that most people do not consider the Bible to be a history book, and that there has been a very strong criticism against using the bible as a history book that has its origins in Spinoza and became academic convention by the late 19th century - looooooooooong before these facts came into existence - I would not say they are "highly" significant. Some people will reject these facts out of hand. Some people will be shocked by them. But many people will say, "Yes, so what else is new?" But I am not implying and definitely not saying explicitly that these facts are not significant for this article. What I am saying - and it is all I have been saying, and saying explicitly, so there is no need to look for any implied meaning, is that they need to be properly contextualized. Is the objective of these archeologists to determine whether the Bible is historically accurate or not? Well, I sure admit that this is possible but I do not think any archeologist in the US would get a grant if this is what they wrote on their research proposal. What ''was'' the objective of the research? We need to know, with reliable sources (and if they say, "the objective of this research was to prove or disprove x passage in the Bible, well, ''you get no opposition from me''. But I know a lot about general archeology and what I know makes me ask, didn't they have other objectives? It is a reasonable question.) If the main point is to explain why people do not use the Bible as a historical document, again, this needs to be properly contextualized. Scholars have been making this claim since Spinoza and no archeologist is going to claim that his or her research proved the Bible wrong; at most they will claim that their research provides ''additional support'' for views ''already held'' by Biblical historians. Is this explicit enough? the word is not "insignificant." The word is C-O-N-T-E-X-T. (or, for you archeologists out there, "matrix"). This is not science versus faith. This is one person who seems to be forwarding the claims of one group of scientists as if they did not occur in the context of work by many, many more scientists (in the sense of ''wissenschaft'') in other fields. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:Two other things. I asked for citations for works by the other archeologists, especially if we are to use them as sources/authorities. I did not ask for another citation for Finkelstein. Research requires us to read more than one article, however good an article it may be. Also, I would say that the paltry 11 (eleven!!) google hits proves my point about English usage. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::The citations you asked for '''are in the references''' of the paper I cited—this is an encyclopedia article, not a refereed journal. And I linked you to [[Google News]] (which date limits hits); a straight [[Google]] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22majority+consensus%22&btnG=Google+Search search for "majority consensus" yields over 41 thousand hits].

*I'd suggest that the major information go into the [[Biblical archeology]] article. This Bible article would have a brief (one-paragraph) summary with a <nowiki>{{main|Biblical archaeology}}</nowiki> link for major information. I'd also suggest lowering the tone somewhat, including reporting Finkelstein's view as Finkelstein's view rather than as fact, indicating his degree of support in a way that sticks close to the sources, and describint things in a relatively low-key manner. ("According to archaeologist [[Israel Finkelstein]], archaeologists have been consistently unable, in decades of searches and excavations, to find evidence of large-scale habitation, structures, and culture that would have been needed to support a major Exodus-type migration, Jerusalem as the capital of a substantial monarchy, and other key elements described in the Biblical narratives as occurring in the 10th centure BCE or before. Professor Finkelstein indicated that archaeologists have been unable to find evidence of substantial Israelite cities or culture prior to about the 8th century BCE. Accordingly, Finkelstein concluded that the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with these narratives having occurred and that the best reading of the evidence is that they did not. Finkelstein's view has been supported by archaeologists including [[William G. Dever|William Dever]]..."). Note that to give Finkelstein consensus status or similar, there at the very least needs to be a third-party source who says he has this level of support. In many areas where there is disagreement between academics and theologians (e.g. [[Creation-evolution controversy]]), sources stating that a certain view is the consensus view within the academic world are pretty easy to come by. With consensus status as with anything else, if we're unable to find evidence we'd expect to find if a proposition were true, it may mean the proposition isn't. Since that's the very point at issue, it's not unreasonable to insist on it here. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk:Shirahadasha|talk]]) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]], thanks for the suggestions. Many of these will be useful. As for "describing things in a relatively low-key manner," I have described them in precisely the terms used by the authorities, which is what the fair representation in [[WP:NPOV]] demands. Also, your text suggests that this is mostly Finkelstein (using the to-be-avoided [[Wikipedia:AWW#Other_problems|passive voice]]), whereas the [[WP:RS]] I've provided shown that these conclusions are widely accepted. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]], I've implemented a version of this that incorporates most, if not all, your helpful suggestions. I made sure to say that these are the conclusions of the cited archaeologists, which isn't as clear as it should be in the my proposed text above, so I modified this as well. Please see the page. Thanks again. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Écrasez, The statement should just be the facts. Going into which archaeologist says this or that is over qualitification of the facts when the sources themselves should make this clear. Also, use of the word "extensive" in this context is POV. There is no other way to look at this. It is opinion of research, not a statement of fact about it. The section needs more trimming and clarity. I will cut overqualifications and keep the language NPOV. --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


:::OK, it's cleaner, more readable, and is fairly NPOV now. I like the fact the information has been included. I do feel this is way too much discussion about it, though. This was a fairly simply matter. I'd like more input on the introduction paragraphs, as I feel these are in much worse shape (see top section of this page). --[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] ([[User talk:Fcsuper|talk]]) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks, it's a lot tighter now. Let me read and digest the lead comments you refer to and I'll attempt a contribution when I feel the inspiration. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez, I removed one of your sources on the grounds that it is nothing more than an exercise in head counting which is irrelevant to the topic anyway. However, I would like you to insert the ''titles'' of the works which myself and the other two editors who went after me have left behind. If you don't, one might claim that these sources are ambiguous, therefore invalid. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:This debate is obviously relevant: it appears to have a not insignificant impact on Dever. It's an appropriate and relevant citation ans should stay. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it is in the article about Dever that this statement should go. You gave no one any reason here to include it anywhere else. Please ask for consensus before you add it again. As for monotheism, anyone with any knowledge of the Bible will tell you it is a no-brainer why no evidence of monotheism can be found for pre-Exilic times. Therefore, no sources are required. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it this way: ''any'' mention of Dever's (or anyone else's) motivations is POV in ''this'' article by its very nature. [[WP:RELEVANCE]], [[WP:ROC]]. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 01:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== RfC: Deletion of Sourced [[WP:NPOV]] Archaeological Conclusions, Dating of Monotheism ==



I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've requested this RfC. [[User:Blanchardb|Blanchardb]] is deleting [[WP:NPOV]] [[WP:RS|reliable source]] [[WP:VER|facts]] from the [[Bible]]. See these links for {{checkuser|Blanchardb}}:
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227933417&oldid=227932828 link]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227930669&oldid=227929917 link]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227912641&oldid=227896906 link]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227316705&oldid=227315465 link]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227178661&oldid=227125181 link]
This user has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions by the admin [[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] before on this talk page [[Talk:Bible#Please explain deletion of WP:RS for archaeology|here]]. We've also discussed this issue at length on this talk page; [[User:Blanchardb|Blanchardb]] is deleting text from a [[WP:CONSENSUS]] discussion based on inputs from [[User:Écrasez l'infâme|me]], [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]], and [[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]]. For the last deletion, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=227933417&oldid=227932828 here]. The deleted text says: <blockquote>[Also unsupported are the accounts of the [[Land of Israel|land]] being passed on to the [[Israelites|12 tribes of Israel]], and [[King David|David]]'s and [[King Solomon|Solomon]]'s conquests] and vast [[United Monarchy|empire]]. Of particular note is that the archaeological evidence indicates that Jewish [[monotheism]] appeared in the waning period of the [[Kingdom of Israel|monarchy]] and not at [[Biblical Mount Sinai|Mount Sinai]]. … Accordingly, many archaeologists have concluded that the evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical narratives having occurred and that the best reading of the evidence is that they did not.<ref name=Finkelstein2001/><ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Dever2007/></blockquote> as well as a reference that says: <blockquote>Other archaeologists who have published scholarly journal articles supporting these conclusions are cited in {{Harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2002|pp=66–68}}: Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, Orna Zimhoni, which [[Israel Finkelstein]] [http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/finkelstein.html argues] represents a majority.</blockquote> These [[WP:VER|verifiable facts]] are all cited with the references:
#{{ Harvard reference | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | authorlink = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | authorlink2 = Neil Asher Silberman | title = [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]] | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0743223381 | url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
#{{ Harvard reference | last = Herzog | first = Ze'ev | authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog | title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho | publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] | year = 1999 | date = October 29, 1999 | url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
#{{cite journal | last = Finkelstein | first = Israel | last2 = Silberman | first2 = Neil Asher | title = Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder | journal = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research | volume = 327 | date = August 2002 | pages = 63–73 | year = 2002 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357859?seq=1 }}
#{{cite journal |last=Dever| first = William G. | authorlink = William G. Dever | title = Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn’t, How Scholarship Affects Scholars | journal = Biblical Archaeology Review | month=March/April | year = 2007 | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 54 | url = http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/other/5106losingfaith.pdf }}
[[User:Blanchardb|Blanchardb]] has offered no reasons consistent with Wikipedia policy for deleting these facts. [[User:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|Écrasez l&#39;infâme]] ([[User talk:Écrasez l&#39;infâme|talk]]) 02:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
: As per comments on this Talk page, I have moved much of the discussion (with minor edits) to the [[Biblical Archaeology]] page where it belongs. Since the page is fully referenced as a Main Article, only a brief overview of the suject is appropriate on the broader [[Bible]] page. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I must say, I don't understand why it needs to be included here in so much details, it is already discussed on [[Biblical Archaeology]].
:: And in any case, it should not be included until the requested Rfc is over, not the other way around. [[User:FFMG|FFMG]] ([[User talk:FFMG|talk]]) 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::The article already states,
::::The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of biblical studies not only because it claims that the Torah was written by different people at different times—generally long after the events it describes—[36] but it also proposed what was at the time a radically new way of reading the Bible. Many proponents of the documentary hypothesis view the Bible more as a body of literature than a work of history, believing that the historical value of the text lies not in its account of the events that it describes, but in what critics can infer about the times in which the authors lived (as critics may read Hamlet to learn about seventeenth-century England, but will not read it to learn about seventh-century Denmark).
:::Isn't it enough simply to say that recent archeological research has only confirmed this view (Shirahadasha crafted quite a fine, concise statement I have no problem with) and leave all the details about debates among archeologists and the specifics about their findings for articles on, well, archeology? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

::::The statement that Shirahadasha crafted, are you referring to what was in his post of 17:17 on the 25th? (Just so I can be clear). If so, it seems like we using that for the archaeology section of this article would essentially mean that we have the views of one archaelogist, Finkelstein, presented. That doesn't particularly make sense to me. Rather than focusing on the views of on archaelogist, we should give a broad overview of what the (biblical) archaeological community as a whole thinks about things. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, 17:17 25th - I liked Shirahadasha's statement. Sure it applies to one archeologist but a very notable one and one whos eviews have great support. But to be clear I meant to say I support two things, and perhaps thre: First, what IU just said above, a smal edit in the Documentary Hypothesis section about archeological research confirming the broad eloements of the critical approcah. I think it would be good to have a brief statemtnt about what the majority of archeologists believe, and then the specific version by Shirahadaha. I think most archeologists are fare closer to Finkelstein than to the viw that the Hexateuch at least is a historically reliable document. I just think there are straightforwaard ways we can say that archeological research largely supports an existing POV. And then use th actual archeology articles to explore the debates among archeologists in detail, including el-Haj's book on the politics of archeology in Israel. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

::This discussion suggests high interest in biblical archeology. The appropriate place for this improvement is the article on [[Biblical Archeology]] (I agree that it needs improvement). This Bible article should only have an overview of what biblical archeology is without getting into specific issues. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 02:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::Again, this article should only have a brief overview of biblical archeology and let readers go to the main article on that subject for discussions and possible conclusions. The Nomadist Theory should be moved to [[Biblical Archeology]] or perhaps [[Jewish history]]. It also needs bo have some balance for a NPOV. Let's not ride the RfC too much longer. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question being asked is whether this article should contain information about Biblical archaelogy, particularly those viewpoints that tend to challenge the literal accuracy of the history. The article as a whole seems pretty good to me. It seems to me that any reasonable article on the Bible needs to have at least summaries of the types of investigation that have been done on it, both literary and historical. The current text is fine, as far as it goes. I'm not sufficiently current on the research to be clear whether there are more recent approaches that should be included, but I suspect so. I think there should be at least a summary of the archaeological issues, including characterizations of the minimalist position and others. Surely people reading the article should know that there has been a lot of work on archaelogy, which can have a major impact on our assessment of the historical sections. It's quite in keeping with Wikipedia style to have brief summarizes of material presented in more detail in other articles.
[[User:Hedrick|Hedrick]] ([[User talk:Hedrick|talk]]) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

:This section has several problems. First, it presents some selective expert opinions which are not necessarily the consensus of all biblical archaeologists. This is a very conrtoversial topic with a broad range of positions. To correct this present NPOV problem, proper balance must be presented. Second, the discussion of this does not belong here in the article on the Bible. It could be in [[The Bible and history]], [[Biblical Archeology]] or perhaps [[Jewish history]]. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:I intervened to attempt to avert an [[WP:Edit war|edit war]], not becaused I endorsed a particular approach to organizing the articles. It would be fine if there were only a summary in this article per [[WP:SUMMARY]], so long as this is agreed to. The difficulty with presenting a "consensus view" is that there are various disputes involved, and there is some danger of declaring a consenus prematurely. In these circumstances, we need sources to support a claim of a consensus view on disputed matters. In the absence of such sources, I don't think it's a bad idea to cite well-known exponents of the different views. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] ([[User talk:Shirahadasha|talk]]) 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::I've already written what I believe to be the "consensus view" just after Écrasez l'Infâme got blocked for - you guessed it - edit warring. From his talk page alone, I figured that guy was an edit war waiting to happen, and you did the best you could. (By the way, he has not edited since his block expired.) I also pointed out the inadequacy of the section on archaeology in general in another thread further down.

::However, if Finkelstein's view is deemed to be a minority opinion, please feel free to delete ''all'' of my work. I want to see this article become a Featured Article, not a propaganda tool. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== Some good is coming out of this situation ==

Regardless of how one feels about Écrasez's position with regard to biblical archaeology, the fact remains that the status quo on archaeology is unacceptable. The article mentions practically nothing about ''post-exilic'' archaeology, which is a major flaw, even for an article that is supposed to give only an overview. For example, there is nothing on the Dead Sea Scrolls, nothing about the Intertestamentary period, nothing about the thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament (yest, that falls under archaeology's field of expertise), etc. I feel that the status quo is just as unacceptable as Écrasez's edits. Correcting this flaw should be a priority in the coming weeks. --Blanchardb-<small><sup>[[User:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#808040">Me</span>]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|<span style="color:#408080">MyEars</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|<span style="color:804080">MyMouth</span>]]</sup></small>-timed 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== Write it out ==

Could we all donate a few verses so we could write out the entire Bible? --[[User:Marshall Williams2|Marshall T. Williams]] ([[User talk:Marshall Williams2|talk]]) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Not here. If that belongs anywhere, it's Wikisource. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, it is against policy to do that sort of thing here. As C.Fred stated, you can do it in Wikisource, which exists for that very purpose. It would only be a matter of copying and pasting material from a copyright-free translation of the Bible (such as the KJV). --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Wikisource?. What is that?.--[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] ([[User talk:SkyWalker|talk]]) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Origins.... ==

I have been doing a lot of reading, however I have not been able to find out a couple things about the Bible. Maybe one of you out there in the virtual world can point me in the right direction.

Who gathered all of the books of the Bible together?

Who did the editing?

Who decided in what order that the Bible would be bound in?

What date was the Bible introduced as the Bible? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rklhughes|Rklhughes]] ([[User talk:Rklhughes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rklhughes|contribs]]) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Start with the articles [[Documentary hypothesis]] and [[Biblical canon]] and after you have read them follow links to related or more specificic articles, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:I figured the best place to respond was [[User talk:Rklhughes|your talk page]]. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Some very good, relatively new, historical research literature ==

* Bruce J. Malina: ''Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea.'' Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville (Kentucky) 1993
* Bruce J. Malina: ''The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology''. 3rd edition, Westminster John Knox Press Louisville (Kentucky) 2001
* E. P. Sanders: ''The Historical Figure of Jesus'' Penguin (Non-Classics) 1996
* Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann: ''The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century.'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 1999, new ed. (paperback) 2001
* Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen: ''The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 2002 —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.188.20.24|77.188.20.24]] ([[User talk:77.188.20.24|talk]]) 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->




==Nomadist Theory==

As stated previously, the section on Nomadist Theory does not really belong here in the Bible. It presents new material which has a much better fit with [[The Bible and history]], [[Biblical Archeology]], [[Jewish history]] or [[History of Ancient Israel and Judah]]. It also has a POV problem which needs to be balanced. It relates to the ongoing debate of minimalist vs maximist theories. I plan to move it to an appropriate article for further discussion: I suggest Bibleical Archeology. I agree that it should not be removed from Wikipedia, just placed in the right place with POV balanced. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Let's move it to the proper article and worry about POV later. Also, let's pray that our friend Écrasez l'Infâme will not object to this consensus. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::The material seems to me entirely on topic, and should stay. We don't do [[WP:POVFORK]]s here. Each article is supposed to be POV-balanced and comprehensive in its own right. The question of how far Biblical narrative may reflect historical reality surely deserves the 10 lines it currently gets in this article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:No one mentioned anything about POV forking here. Biblical archaeology is a topic so vast that it should have an article of its own, and discussing biblical archaeology is not the same as discussing the Bible itself, so this is more a matter of [[WP:ROC]]. When we move POV-biased text per [[WP:ROC]] from one article to another, it will ''remain'' just as biased in its new home and must be worked on all the same. And nothing stops ''us'' from working on it at its new location.
:Now I agree that biblical archaeology ''should'' be mentioned in this article, but I'd rather have ''nothing'' than the current text that concentrates on one particular aspect of biblical archaeology. But the text we ''do'' have ''should'' be part of the article on archaeology, where it is very relevant. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::I have doubts about the whole section. Only one sentence relates to the title of the subsection, and the rest is very poorly written and the accurate parts of it duplicate material elsewhere in this article and developed more fully in other articles. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This section has been moved to [[biblical archaeology]] for a better fit. Editors can address POV problems and other improvements at that location. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Since: (1) it seems to me that an article on a book which, at least in part, purports to give a historical narrative, ought to give an overview of where research stands into that historicity; (2) this article has contained such a discussion for a considerable length of time; and (3) in [[:Wikipedia:Summary style]], it is normal to give a short summary of the content of the article linked, not just two lines saying it exists; for all these reasons I'm substantially restoring the section (minus the subheading "nomadist theory", which is the one thing I think does not fit).

:The two paragraphs seem to me to give a fairly accurate snapshot of the archaeological picture, though one could argue that the words "so far" in "Archaeological evidence has so far failed to support..." might be tendentious. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:: This material has been included for a while because a request for comment essentially locked it while active discussion took place. This section is controversial and includes material not discussed on the referenced articles. If this section stays, it must correct a serious POV problem with some balance and further discussion. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

==????==

Who discovered the original bible and when? And if anybody knows, Where is the ORIGINAL bible? [[User:Tool-apc|<b><span style="color:Black">mÆniac</span></b>]] [[User talk:Tool-apc|<b><sup><font color="#0000ff">Ask!</font></sup></b>]] 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:If you read the article, you will learn that there is no such thing as an ''original'' Bible, though there were originals of the 66 books that compose it (duh!). Those are lost, and, in all likelihood, destroyed. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 10:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::*Ahem*. 73. [[User:Cfortunato|Carlo]] ([[User talk:Cfortunato|talk]]) 13:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, obviously, what I said above for the 66 "universally recognized" canonical books goes for the 7 Roman Catholic deuterocanonicals as well. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::There are only 5 universally recognised books - the Samaritans accept only the Torah. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]]) 08:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::So? NPOV is interested in multiple points of view, not lowest common denomenators. The Samaritans and Jews have different Bibles. That some books are in common does not make those books more interesting except perhaps to a historian of religion - and that may be a notable POV but it is just one among many. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Introduction paragraph again...too much repeating ==

The second and third paragraphs of the introducion are explanatory (redundant) to the first paragraph and redundant to the body of the article. They should be removed to simply the intro and/or make room for a scientific or secular consideration of the bible. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:I've reorganized the first three paragraphs into two, eliminating said repetition. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 01:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

why is this article locked? [[Special:Contributions/59.92.187.96|59.92.187.96]] ([[User talk:59.92.187.96|talk]]) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because of too much unconstructive editing by people trying to push an either pro- or anti-Christian agenda. But it is locked only to unregistered users. If you create an account for yourself, you will be able to edit the article. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

::Right now, it's locked out to reg users like me. Anyway, the intro is still not good. The intro is still trying too hard to be its own article. It goes into nuances of bible structure and doesn't really cover what is discussed in the article itself. All references to differences of the bible can be summed up with the simple sentence that already appears in the first paragraph. References specific Jewish and Christian traditions need only one further sentence each. The structure of the bible is covered quiet well by the body of the article and does not need to be rewritten in the intro. This will make room to cover other areas actually discussed in the article! <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

An intorduction should introduce the whole article. That is what this intro does. Someone can read just the intro - and it is short, just three paragraphs - and get all the most important points of the article. That is a damn good introduction! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::No, this is a horrible introduction. It doesn't do what you say it does. It does not describe the article. It goes off on a tangent about one particular point (types of bibles) and it does so in a rather messy way, meandering from one type to another. All of that can be summed up in one sentence, which is already there, "The exact composition of the Bible is dependent on the religious traditions of specific denominations." All the other text about composition after that is superfluous. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== External links ==
How about adding {{1911EB|Bible}}? --[[User:Gister|Gister]] ([[User talk:Gister|talk]]) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== The Hebrew book titles come from the first words in the respective texts. ==

breshit is first word of genesis.
But shemot is second word of exodus.
vayikra is first word of leviticus.
bemidbar is fifth word of numbers.
devarim is most of the second word of deuteronomy, because the actual second word is ha-devarim -- "the numbers".

== New Link Suggestion ==

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible

Very useful, and a unique link. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Matheuslacerdaf|Matheuslacerdaf]] ([[User talk:Matheuslacerdaf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matheuslacerdaf|contribs]]) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No. Wikipedia is not a directory. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] ([[User talk:SkyWalker|talk]]) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


::I'd support links that provide access to many versions of the bible, but no more individual bible sources. <span style="color:Purple">—</span> '''[[User:Fcsuper|<span style="color:#006699">f</span><span style="color:#6666FF">c</span><span style="color:#666699">s</span><span style="color:#336633">u</span><span style="color:#006699">p</span><span style="color:#6633FF">e</span><span style="color:#9966FF">r</span>]]'''<sup> ([[:User talk:Fcsuper|<span style="color:Olive">How's That?</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Fcsuper|<span style="color:Teal">That's How!</span>]])</sup> <sub>([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism <span style="color:Maroon">Exclusionistic</span>] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism <span style="color:Red">Immediatist</span>] ) </sub><span style="color:Purple">—</span> 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) being 'included' in some faiths? Should this not be 'excluded' in some faiths? ==

Here is the original sentence '''''"Some groups within Christianity include additional books as part one or both of these sections of their sacred writings – most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical books."'''''''''

This may be splitting hairs here, but the Catholic church is the basis upon which Christianity is built. That is fact. It seems to me that the line should read that 'some faiths EXCLUDE some books in their faith'

Sorry but it seems to imply that Catholics are adding things to the bible when in fact it is Protestants and Evangelicals who are excluding books from the original bible.

I'm not looking to start a 'Catholic is better than Protestant than Evangelical' argument here as it is futile and not important to this discussion, but it is simple fact that Catholicism was first in Christianity and therefore any alterations to what is included or not included in a Christian bible must be measured from the version Catholics use as it was the original Christian bible used by the first organized practicing Christians.

[[User:Manny75586|Manny75586]] ([[User talk:Manny75586|talk]]) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:On the contrary. The original Bible contained neither Deuterocanonical books ''nor'' the Christian Testament. Which version came first in Christianity is not relevant to which version of the Bible was first. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

::One compromise would be to say "Protestants excluded .... from the Christian canon." This would be accurate since you are specifying who and are providing a frame of reference. Otherwise, I would agree with Lisa: the canonization of the Bible started as a process of deciding what to include, or one could write about debates over whet to include or exclude, but it is not like there was a thing everyone agreed on called "the Bible" and then books were taken out of it; there were all these books circulating and a process arose by which some were selected for inclusion in a new thing, "the Bible." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Given that the Catholics put the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Old Testament even though no notable Jewish faction regards them as sacred, I think it would be safe and accurate to say they were ''added''. In any case, their inclusion has always been controversial, and while Jerome included them in the ''Vulgate'', he did so only reluctantly. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup></small>- timed 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:35, 19 November 2008

the bible is a rabbit it sniffs and eats

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible&oldid=252774814"