Talk:Ezekiel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-Class, High-importance)
Star of David.svg
Star of David.svg Judaism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated Start-Class, High-importance)
Hebrew Chai Symbol trans.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Saints (Rated Start-Class)
Gloriole.svg
Gloriole.svg Saints portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Gnome-mime-text-x-credits.svg
 This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-Class)
Crystal personal.svg
P vip.svg Biography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Gnome-mime-text-x-credits.svg
 An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Bible  
P46.jpg
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg Bible portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Unrated ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Content?

I read through this particular book in the bible, which is unusual for me as I have'nt read much of the rest. But that's becuase this particular book is full of triping out, sex and violence. Right from the beggining we're reading about strange visions for imaginative, super human creatures, in depth details of the ins and outs of several 'hoes' and given NUMEROUS clear and undisputed accounts of mass murder by the hand of God.

DVD player broken? grab a smoke and read through this book, you'll love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.155.180 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ezekiel the prophet

I hope every word about Ezekiel the prophet is here, unedited. Everything about the text should be at Book of Ezekiel. --Wetman 08:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment from article

User:67.101.102.88 said:

Ezekiel is known to have been from amuch later time than the Babylonian Captivity. Why is everyone using the Bible as if it were a history and meant to be taken uncritically. It's time to correct these mis-impressions, it's a disgrace and an obstacle to truth.
d1494@gmail.com

I moved his comment from the article to here. Tom Harrison Talk 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel reference

I have a quibble with "during part of which he was contemporary with Daniel". Ezekiel was a real person (as far as anyone can tell), whereas Daniel was a fictional character in a book written centuries later (according to mainstream scholarship: obviously, fundamentalists disagree). This is somewhat like describing the archaeologist Howard Carter as "a contemporary of Indiana Jones". I've edited the Daniel reference accordingly, but the result is a somewhat cumbersome digression: perhaps it would be best to remove it altogether. --Robert Stevens 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be a "fundamentalist" to disagree with the idea that Daniel was not a real person. Cynics like to charactaraize those scholars who agree with them as "mainstream scholarship", while any scholars holding to other opinions are somehow "unscholarly". Rubbish. Biblical scholarship does not employ the scientific method. There is no completely empirical standard that can be applied. Each scholar will come to the conclusions his or her preconceptions lead them to. If one automatically dismisses out of hand any possibility of the miracoulous, he will be brought to certain conclusions; if one permits room for the metaphysical, one will come to different conclusions. Well-educated, inteligent scholars lie on both sides of the question. Being a theologian does not mean one abandons reason. MishaPan (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make a note that many people who would not describe themselves as fundamentalists would also be relunctant to describe Daniel as a fictional character. Mark 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that non-fundamentalists who don't consider Daniel fictional are those who haven't studied the issue and take the Bible at face value unless told otherwise. I'd draw a parallel with children in non-fundamentalist churches not realising their parents don't believe in Noah's ark or the garden of Eden because it's not made explicit. As far as scholars go, I am not aware of any non-fundamentalists arguing for the historicity of Daniel in recent times. Maybe there are some, but I'm confident you won't find many. 124.190.6.202 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

[edit] Recruit bible scholar OR merge

Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, but because the talk page reflects disagreement about whether Ezekiel and Book of Ezekiel should be merged, I am doing my best to give fair warning to any editors who still oppose the merge before making any actual changes. If you do NOT want these two articles merged, PLEASE leave signed comments that explain your reasoning on one of the two talk pages as soon as possible. Thanks! Invisible Flying Mangoes 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has some referenced sources (besides the Book of Ezekiel) that tell us about the life of Ezekiel, please add them to the article or, if you're busy, e-mail them to me at Xeerd@aol.com, and I'll be happy to add them to the article myself. If, on the other hand, the Book of Ezekiel is the only real source of information about Ezekiel the Prophet, then there really is no reason to have two articles, one for the Prophet and one for the Book. We should merge the two articles into one, not becuase anyone has any kind of hidden agenda (Assume good faith!), but because two articles based on one set of sources does not serve the reader as well as one article based on one set of sources.

Invisible Flying Mangoes 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's (carefully) merge this with the article on the Book of Ezekiel. They are on the same topic, and cover the same points. RK 22:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

No. Some of the reasons to maintain articles on texts separate from articles on authors, as is universal in adult discourse and followed throughout Wikipedia, are set out at Talk:Book of Ezekiel. This present article concerning the historic figure who wrote the major part of Ezekiel has not yet begun to set the prophet Ezekiel in the context of 6th-century concerns, religious politics, the Captivity, etc. Let us not be misled by personal agendas. --Wetman 00:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Stop your personal attacks. Attacking me as not being an adult, and bizarrely attacking me for promoting some unstated personal agenda is over the line. If you continue your personal attacks I will institute a RFC against you for this behaviour. RK 00:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
When one identifies the dialectics that are typical of cultism, one may reasonably surmise that some agenda is at work. What then is the agenda here? Tidiness? Service to the reader? It is the actions that are disreputable. Of the person I know nothing. --Wetman 01:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. What cult-like behaviour are you referring to? So far, I have repeatedly told that you I totally agree with you, on the Talk:Book of Ezekiel discussion page. In response, you have made up beliefs that I simply do not have, and then attacked me for these non-extant beliefs. What is going on? RK 01:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
This agenda is reopened. The motivations for blending the alleged author inescapably with the text, so that one may not discuss Luke for instance, without taking into account and tacitly accepting a perhaps spurious biography of a "Luke", etc. have not always proved wholesome. What of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomist? What of Nehemiah and Nehemiah, of Ezra and Ezra? Indeed, what of the "biography" of Daniel, the field of fools? Read the exchanges above and at Talk:Book of Ezekiel and learn from them. Hagiographies as texts may be discussed quite sensibly, whether or not the existence of the saints and the adventures and miracles within the texts are childish nonsense. If some of the more fastidious Wikipedians prefer to discuss texts— which are incontrovertibly real— quite apart from these "biographies", and if there is intense resistance to this merge already fully expressed, why not leave it alone, if your "respect" is genuine?
Cut and paste any material at Book of Ezekiel and apply it here at Ezekiel. --Wetman 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb of Ezekiel?

I'd appreciate information about the reputed tomb of Ezekiel, at Kifel, north of Najaf. According to Simon Jenkins, the site, once guarded by Iraqi Jews, "have been all but destroyed" during the ongoing hostilities.[1] --Ghirla-трёп- 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There should be an Ezekiel's tomb section.
Erudecorp 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Added a perliminary section. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

I added the IPA. Here are six interpretations:

  1. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeʔl ]
  2. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqe.æl ]
  3. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeʔæl ]
  4. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeːʔl ]
  5. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeː.æl ]
  6. IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeːʔæl ]

I chose the simplest. Please remember [ . ] is a syllable, not a pause, and [ ' ] is placed before the accent, not after. Erudecorp 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I only want the list of prophesies section to be moved and added, not the entire article. This article would still exist. I suggest replacing it with a list of (important) references to Ezekiel the person in other books, especially ones with articles on WP. Erudecorp 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Son of man?

Isn't the "Son of Man" a blasphemouis identifyer. Spoken about by Christ in the new testament and other Apocolypse prophecies of the bible. And if so, which I have heard it is, wouldn't that mean god was putting one over on the "Son of Man" in the book Ezekiel as maybe punishment or so that the words of the book would be known as blasphemouis serving more than one purpose in the Holy Bible?--207.14.129.51 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

By Christians maybe (except by myself, who just automatically consider another meaning and another tradition than the Christian one I'm learning)... otherwise it may be a historical fact, or not. Citation needed maybe? Said: Rursus ☻ 07:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truth or fiction

The article doesn't mention any discussion about whether Ezekiel really existed (in terms of exo-religious historical references) and, after reading it, I am none the wiser as to whether this article is meant to be read as a non-fictional historical document or the description of a biblical story. It needs fixing! Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a bizarre tendency among some to presume that everything in the Bible is fictional. There are many ancient figures which are known from only one source, and yet these same people don't seem to have any qualms about accepting their historical existence. I don't think there is any scientific way to "prove" that Ezekiel did not exist, so it would be incorrect (and dishonest) to categorically state that Ezekiel is "fiction". MishaPan (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Historically they're "nonattested". It's quite possible some of them existed, but believing that is an act of faith, and since WP exercise no such, in WP one-source guys are not historically attested. Citations of outside theories are needed. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what's going on in this article?

This article seems to be nothing more than a collection of chunks of religious doctrine, with no external commentary and analysis cited. Anyone interested in bringing this up to GA or FA? ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations on ahistoricities?

As I can read Ezekiel myself, he divined the ultimate destruction of Tyros and many other enemies of Israel, yet those enemies (f.ex. the Persians and the Egyptians) still stand upright as Israel does. Then it cannot be a literal prophesy, under the rules for prophesies, unless we make a huge jump from c:a 500 BC to maybe 2050-2100 BC. Any analysis for what kind of vision Ezekiel really is? Said: Rursus ☻ 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ezekiel the stoner

People today think Ezekiel was probably an hallucination drug abuser. Most researchers think he was outcasted because he was thought of as a lunatic. This is taught in high-schools in Israel; why isn't this mentioned here? Siúnrá (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations, citations, citations. Get lots of them, reliable ones. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epilepsy

I just moved this from the Book of Ezekiel page but I wonder if it's necessary to even have this now. It was suggested by Altschuler that he may have it. I've heavily investigated this subject and came to a different conclusion. For example the hypergraphia thing. His argument for that was due to it being the second longest book in the Bible (not that long). Compare this to writings of other hypergraphics and you'll see what I mean but my input isn't the kind of thing that would affect the article since I'm not a published neurologist but I am very familair with the symptoms of TLE. Anyway, Altschuler seems to be the only person to have written anything about it so is that enough to include his input? I mean, a few years ago some Isreali historian suggested that Moses was smoking an acacia tree but his article doesn't mention that. How should things suggested by one person be handeled? Anyway, you guys make the consensus if this should stay or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Removed the unaddressed tag in the Islam section. Left most of what was there put in context but the three subsections are suspect. Wrt to the secular views §, there should be scholarship addressing the fact that Ezekiel is the last prophet in the Jewish branch of the Abrahamic group, Jesus the last one in another, and Mohammed in another, etc., i.e. at what point does historicity suppress prophecy? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Confusing

I find this article quite confusing and difficult to follow. For example, in the beginning it says that Ezekiel was the son of Buzi. Then a few sentences later it says that Hilkiah, the priest, was his father. Hopefully, someone with expertise in this area can work with this article to make it more literate. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Ficiton

Tarantino invented an alternate Ezekiel 25:17 [2]. Perhaps an Ezekiel in popular culture section? Geo8rge (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid that here. This article's bad enough, filling it with irrelevant trivia's not going to improve it. On the other hand, if you have a bit of Tarantino's commentary on the need for a change, that might be useful. Finally, I looked it up, and it seems the END of his quote is ezekiel 25:17, in message if not specific wording, and frankly, there are so many versions of the bible, it seems easier to explain as 'he used a different version than you grew up with.' ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ezekiel"