|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Secular views - Why?
- 2 Content?
- 3 Ezekiel the prophet
- 4 comment from article
- 5 Daniel reference
- 6 Recruit bible scholar OR merge
- 7 Tomb of Ezekiel?
- 8 IPA
- 9 Requested move
- 10 Son of man?
- 11 Truth or fiction
- 12 what's going on in this article?
- 13 Citations on ahistoricities?
- 14 Ezekiel the stoner
- 15 Epilepsy
- 16 Edits
- 17 Confusing
- 18 Pulp Ficiton
- 19 Rearrangement: Islam/Christian
- 20 Ezekial's Life
- 21 Impossible to Read
- 22 NPOV issues
- 23 Fallen Angel Êzêqêêl
Secular views - Why?
Explain to me why Wiki articles need to present "secular views" of historic religious figures when there are no "religious/spiritual" views on secular articles, including all the "scientific" articles which utilize evolutionary explanations. These present no alternate point of view. If there is no requirement for presenting spiritual views on the origins of species in each of those articles (such as an article on dogs or cats), I see no requirement for including such a category as "secular views" in religious/spiritual articles. And if the latter SHOULD be included, then I think alternate views of the origins of species should be included in articles that purport to list the origins of dogs and cats (for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
All articles should present views from multiple sources (not in collaboration with each other) in order to present a reasonable argument as to the acceptability of legitimacy. If someone writes a book and cites only the Christian bible (or other books whose citations all go back to the same source), then those sources are collaborative sources. Since any source that doesn't base directly from the Christian bible is considered "secular", a "secular view" is necessary in order to present an objective perspective. Cypherjitsu (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
Ezekiel the prophet
comment from article
- 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.
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. 184.108.40.206 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
Halfway disagree with the above. There is a scholarly consensus that the Book of Daniel is from the age of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, c. 170 BCE. However, critical, non-fundamentalist scholars are divided on whether the figure of Daliel (Ezek. 14:14,20; 28:3) was (a) invented out of whole cloth (unlikely--where's the OOMPH of the 2nd half of the Book of Daniel then?), (b) a legend of a primeval sage who allegedly lived millennia before the Exile, (c) a real sage & younger contemporary of Ezekiel. -- In case of (b), Ezekiel classed Daniel with Noah & Job. Ezekiel's mention of Daniel then led the author of Daniel to use this legendary sage in a new setting (or two). In case of (c), some of the early stories in Daniel could have some historical basis. The 2nd half of Daniel was a apocalypse purporting to have been predicted by the sage of the 1st part. --I favor (b). Jakob3 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- There should be an Ezekiel's tomb section.
- Erudecorp 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the IPA. Here are six interpretations:
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeʔl ]
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqe.æl ]
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeʔæl ]
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeːʔl ]
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeː.æl ]
- IPA: [ jəx.ezˈqeːʔæl ]
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)
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?--220.127.116.11 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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) Ezekiels are real and can be summoned in you and eat all evil i meet lydia and she was an Ezekiel she gave me the crystal that people were turned into read the cathloic bible im one my name is justin arrieta i have the power of lightning and fire its no joke its reality
- Citations, citations, citations. Get lots of them, reliable ones. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Lack of clarity on age (Living in Babylon and Prophetic career sections): If Ezekiel is 30 in year 592, then he would be 35, not 25 when he is exiled to Babylon 5 years later in 587.Ff11 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
I made some major edits to the introduction of Ezekiel's life in an effort to bring more clarity to the character of Ezekial, adding two new sections: Living in Babylon and Prophetic Career. I hope that it inspires further research and add ons.
Someone must have confused Ezekiel with Eliakim, son of Hilkiah the High Priest (2Kings 18:18, 22:4). Anyway, this article soley presents Ezekial's father, Buzi as it is made very clear in Ezekiel 1:3.
I vote to remove this section as there is no substancial evidence for it.
- Ezekiel's existance must be hard-proved first before determining any valid ailments. This is like making a commentary on Alice in Wonderland by saying Alice has epileptic seizures and thats why she sees talking cats!
- This notion of Epilepsy is only one person's opinion... Who is Altschuler, anyway?
- The idea of Ezekial having Epilepsy undermines the quality of the story. Its like saying Captain Sparrow is gay because he acts queer...
Queer (From www.dictionary.com) 1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint 2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady 3. not feeling physically right... 4. mentally unbalanced or deranged.
Further, in light of the above definition, I could even say that... I think the idea of Ezekiel having epilepsy is a rather queer idea.
What substantiates as a good article under secular view, should be viewpoints from valid scholars who have some proof of Ezekiel's existence or... some reasonable input as to why they believe Ezekiel was not a real person. Their basis should not be only on opinions or driven by anti-religious beliefs... or whether they think Ezekiel was a crack-head or not. Though secularism avoids use of religious opinion, a good secular article would be one that either proves or disproves the existence of Ezekiel... not an Ezekiel bashing article like the "Epilepsy" section appears to do.
Impossible to Read
The following below (from the Secular Views section) is so dense it makes no sense. Hopefully someone can clean it up so that average readers can fathom it (although personally I think it should be deleted altogether; it's a bit "far out"): Supposed indication of spacecraft
Erich von Däniken and others who believe the Earth has been visited by natives of unknown places out in universe have been excited, to a considerable degree, by Ezekiel's vision. That Ezekiel endeavors, differently than others of the Bible's authors who describe mystic visions, to report about as many details of the design of what he has perceived as possible nourishes doubts that his account can usefully be interpreted merely on a mystical basis and strengthens tendencies to explain certain passages of the book as descriptions of sightings of a spacecraft. The Austro-American NASA engineer Josef F. Blumrich tried to reconstruct a spaceship that Ezekiel may have flown in.
I agree, this absolutely should be deleted. These are not common views and Erich von Däniken is widely discredited. This is just one crazy guys hypothesis that he wrote books about. No basis for being a "secular view" of this.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It asserts as fact that '30' refers to his age, but this is disputed by scholars.
- It asserts as fact that 3000 upper class Jews were deported to Babylon, although we have no contemporary extra-biblical source for this and the cite is to Josephus.
- The sections on his life read too much as though Wikipedia is asserting him to be a real historical character. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's no basis in the original text for suggesting that 30 must have been Ezekiel's age. It is possible that Ezekiel 1:1 refers to thirty years counting from some event other than Ezekiel's birth. It is the thirtieth year counting from finding the book of the law in the temple (18th year of Josiah), though that may be a coincidence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Fallen Angel Êzêqêêl
- That would require assuming that Hebrew does not allow multiple figures to bear the same name (which is not the case), and would require Judaism to either have a negative view of Ezekiel (they have a positive view), or a positive view of fallen angels (they have a negative view of fallen angels). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention Êzêqêêl in other texts is one of the generation of Jared, before the Deluge, and Ezekiel lived in Israel millenia later. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)