Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible

Kolbrin Bible

Kolbrin Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article Kolbrin was deleted through ProD previously. Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of people talking about this book should not be confused with the book itself. The text indeed is widely discussed these days in publications of several fringe science interest groups. The text itself though is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entries (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression calling old debatable texts 'theory' rpba (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source that could serve as evidence that it is a) a classical text (and not a recent fraud) and b) recognised and discussed as such by something even barely reliable? Compare this article to Gospel of Judas, for which we have adequate sources and discussion... Fram (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer:The Ph.D. Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University, and lecturer and writer of more studies on King Arthur, archeology, Egyptology, Anthropology and Quantum Physics, has surfaced this book quite recently in his research. He is the most prominent authority in the field concerning this book. The documents were written during the intertestamental period, Kimball explained, and its final form was intact by the beginning of the second century A.D. This is the outcome of his research. I consider it valid. The Knights Templar eventually took possession of these documents (to protect them from the likes of King Edward I of England) and redacted The Kolbrin to reflect their point of view, Kimball noted. A typical example of an expert scientist involved with the book is James Mc Canney, who as an astrofysicist left mainstream science because of his opinions on the electomagnetic nature of celestial mechanics. The book is part of the discussion on the possible existence of a planet X also called Nibiru that would return once in a three thousand years or so. It is a paradigmatic discussion these days, and this book is relevant to this discussion because it seems to deliver historical proof for the case. rpba (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is Glenn Kimball, the Ph.D. in Communications?[1] Not really a relevant Ph.D. for this kind of studies (or for astrophysics, for that matter). It is unclear whether he really is a Ph.D. and a lecturer[2]. Have you any evidence of him ever contributing anything to some scholarly journal about these subjects (ancient manuscripts)? As far as I can see, I have no reason to consider his "research" as valid at all...

(edit conflicted) And Mc Canney is about as fringe as they come (as is Nibiru). So a communcations expert and an astrophysicist have concluded that these books are indeed over 3,000 years old... Fram (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: it is a subject of discussion, and the scientists involved are who they are. It is not to me to judge the quality of this or that scientist or translation. Of relevance is whether there is a discussion among scientists. Not the issue is whether it is an immediate success in the sense of being published in this or that prominent magazine. To me the fact of these discussions is enough proof that the book is authentic. Why else would it be mentioned at the religious texts page? It wasn't debated there. Now you have a dead link there again if you deny information about that indeed possibly theologically dubious text. It is not the duty of scientists to judge this or that scientist themself, but to agree about resources and facts. And there is no doubt cast by anyone on the authenticity and historical truth of this book. So I give it the advantage of doubt. Also gnostics discuss about the validity of translations of the Nag Hammadi. That doesn't disqualify the book itself. To my opinion it would be socially destructive repression to deny the existence of this historical book. There is enough proof for the historical reality and actual relevance of the book in my opinion. That justifies this entry. Also looking at the content of the book itself leaves me no doubt. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate something. Mein Kampf by mr A. Hitler is also discussed in the Wikipedia, even though that content is far more dangerous and dubious than the Kolbrin text! The question is, has your doubt been resolved Fram?rpba (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They aren't recognised scientists in this field of study, so their opinion of these books is rather irrelevant. The fact that they both are known fringe scientists makes it of course even worse. There is not one good indication that these are truly old books, that they have attracted any serious interest, and that they are not the prefect examples of what WP:FRINGE describes. The contents of the books are quite irrelevant to all this. Fram (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article as it stands now is quite confusing. The article (improbably) asserts the antiquity of these manuscripts, while including it among modern pseudepigraphia. A factual article on the history, the claims made by these texts, and who promotes them, may well pass muster; the article I read doesn't seem to have this information ready. No opinion yet on whether this fringe theory has sufficient circulation to be notable, whether on the Mormon level, the Scientology level, or even on the Oahspe level. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is welcome to improve on this stub of course. I again insist that deleting this page and denying the historical reality of this book does harm to the interest of the public, more than the possible fringe theory about it. I close my argument with this reminding you of the fact that it is not logical to link this book e.g. up under Modern pseudepigrapha and not didplay it here. But do as you like. Your argument is valid in as far as you deleting this are not a scientist yourself apparently. At least you have no respect in that sense. The page is also submitted to the Game of Order Wiki. I'll attach the label, 'repressed' to it as you like, including a copy of this discussion. It's your honor after all. So you can't really kill it. I have more of these 'martyr pages'. rpba (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)