Talk:Book of Malachi
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Subjective Bias Within This Article
There is blatant subjective bias in several sections of this article. For example, the NRSV New Testament comparisons are based on a Protestant perspective. I don't think this article should be used to expound Protestant theology. Please keep this in mind when modifying articles such as this one. --Gorgalore —Preceding comment was added at 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that my revised and expanded entry for the book of Malachi was reverted. The version I attempted to use cited the old version as a reference (the 100+ year old Easton's Bible Dictionary) and added a great deal more information.
Was there something specifically wrong with my update which necessitated its entire removal? --Jdstrgh 08:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I argree!
- I thought the new article was good and was a needed update of a 100 year old BIble Dictionary --John Campbell 12:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I realize that people change this quite often...and not always for the better. It'd good to see people are keeping their eyes on it! --John Campbell 16:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Appears written almost entirely from a Christian POV and sourcing, needs more content on role in Judaism. Will attempt to work on it. --Shirahadasha 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the editors of the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary, the name is not a "nomen proprium" and is assumed to be an abbreviation of ("messenger of Yhwh"),
But Easton's says:
- Some have supposed that the name is simply a title descriptive of his character as a messenger of Jehovah, and not a proper name. There is reason, however, to conclude that Malachi was the ordinary name of the prophet.
So we are saying that Easton's is saying the contrary of what it says. Are we quoting a different edition? Is the quote misattributed? --126.96.36.199 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking this up!! Without naming any names, we've had difficulties with some editors in the past who haven't been careful about sourcing. --Shirahadasha 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the attribution should have been to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article Book of Malachi, which resolutely does take this view.
- The best way forward, of course, would be to report what is said by contemporary mainstream 21st century academic scholarship. Jheald (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Who cares what LDS say?
The whole part about what the LDS say or feel about this book is rather pointless. All apocalyptic groups have their own self-serving views and thoughts on everything. It would be better left to real Bible scholars and theologians, than 19th centuries scrams and hoaxes. --User:don't have one 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
Authorship of the article
I'm moving this remark from the "Further reading" section of the article, as signatures and signature-like comments are inappropriate in mainspace articles:
- The original version of this article was prepared in 2005 for the course BIBL5023 at Acadia Divinity College
Reference to nothing
Just FYI to the editors of this section--it says to see the LDS Church's interpretation below, but that was removed, so it makes no sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)