Talk:Bible

Hebrew Bible etc.

For some reason User:Cush keeps changing the phrase "Hebrew Bible" to "Jewish Bible" in the article's lede, despite the fact that the Wikipedia article name is Hebrew Bible. He's also changing the fact that the Greek Septaugint is a translation of a Hebrew original to it being a "version", and insisting that Jesus be referred to as "Christ".[1][2][3] Cush, can you explain your justification for these edits? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using "Hebrew Bible" if the article doesn't specifically refer to the Masoretic Text.

Who are you to define what the term means or what the "wikipedia term" is? The lede of the Bible article contains the term "Jewish Bible" several times, so in fact it would be consistent to keep using "Jewish Bible", which is also more accurate. The term "Hebrew Bible" refers almost exclusively to the Masoretic Text, which is a medieval redaction of older Bibles. "Hebrew Bible" has a much smaller and quite specific scope, while "Jewish Bible" refers to all Bibles ever used by Jews. And the Septuagint is not a translation of any pre-existing Bible, because such a collection did simply not exist before the various and often unrelated texts were compiled into one book by the authors of the Septuagint in the Ptolemaic period. The Septuagint is in fact the first Jewish Bible. And I do not insist that Jesus should be referred to as Christ, since that would be a blatantly Christian POV. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cush, Wikipedia has an article called Hebrew Bible. Not "Jewish Bible". The article itself makes clear that the phrase refers to a set or canon of books, not a specific text, and that it is used as a "neutral" term for "Old Testament", not as a synonym for "Masoretic Text". Why are you defining it to mean something else than what Wikipedia articles define it to mean? Moreover, the Septuagint is without doubt a Greek translation (or set of translations) of an original Hebrew text or texts. The first line of the Wikipedia article states "The Septuagint (play /ˈsɛptjuːəˌdʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is an Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible". It's unclear why you would want to deny or obscure that fact. And finally, if you don't insist that Jesus be referred to as "Christ", then why do you keep changing "Jesus" to "Christ"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A case (Cush) of not seeing the forest for the trees? Functionally I would take "Hebrew Bible" as referring to the common codix of the Old Testament regardless of subsequent canon, variations, applications, interpretations. Hmm... took a peek at the article... hmm... that's pretty much what it appears to be. Neither does "Hebrew" make any judgement as to use in Jewish or Christian theologies. While I can't severely disagree with any specific point by Cush, that does not mean I support the overall contention which the points are intended to construct. Or perhaps I'm taking too simplistic view of this all? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of it referes to as the Jewish Bible, maybe this is some Evangelical Christian thing? When Jews are writing in English (relevant, because this is English WP), they usually say "Hebrew Bible" as in here (The Jewish Publication Society is the most established Jewish press); from another press, from our friends at the Catholic Encyclopedia, another source (which by the way promises to make your dream come true!!) ... "Hebrew Bible" is a pretty uncontentious phrase. The problem is that Cush seems to thrive on contentious edits, I am wondering if she is just a typical WP:TE. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User Cush can, at times, pass human understanding. For sure nothing he (he's a bloke, not a blokette) says is motivated by Christian faith - Cush is virulently anti-Christian. He isn't really very fond of Judaism either. (But he's not an anti-Semite - it's the religion that riles him). Sometimes I get along very well with Cuch, other times not, and this is one of the other times. Cush, the coirrect term, for our purposes, is "Hebrew bible". It means the Bible written in Hebrew, and it's exactly the same thing as the Masoretic text, since the HB is written using that text. And it's also the bible used by Jews, but that's pretty irrelevant really. How about we use some sources - how about starting with Emmanuel Tov? PiCo (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012

Open http://simplebibletruths.net/BiblePublishersAccountableToWho.htm then http://simplebibletruths.net/Wa-In.htm and answer important questions about the Bible and beliefs Especially (3) Name One Bible Penman or Any Hebrew Prophet, Priest, Rabbi, Scribe of Pharisee or Any First Century Christian that Taught That God is a Two in One or Three in One God—Trinity--Two or Three Separate Persons, but Still One God. Is that Fact or Fiction?

Name Just One—More If YOU Can, The Bible Penmen Are --Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, (David, Asaph, Heman + possibly others unnamed wrote the Psalms), Solomon, Agur, Lemuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 

Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude. From 40_penmen_that_wrote_the_Bible#ixzz1gNllXKRJ FROM http://simplebibletruths.net/

Godyverde1 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Inserting that would violate WP:LINKSPAM, as another editor has explained to you on your talk page. Esoglou (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

I want to add the Book of Temptation to the wikipedia holy bible.

PCfreely (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The template is for detailed requests. Wait four days and make ten edits and you will be able to edit this yourself. Celestra (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the claims for the Bible's "sales" figures.

'The Bible is the best-selling book in history with approximate sales estimates ranging from 2.5 billion to 6 billion,[5][6] and annual sales estimated at 25 million Bibles.

Is this really the number of Bibles sold, or merely distributed? We know that many are given away free of charge by groups such as the Gideons. The sources cited are hardly scholarly (and one is now a dead link). This is an important point since it is easy to give books away but a lot more difficult to sell them. If no-one can come up with a more reliable link, I will change the sentence to: The Bible is the best-distributed book in history with sales-and-giveaways between ... Hellbound Hound (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

First, neither link is dead for me. Second, sources need only be reliable, not scholarly. Finally, your proposed language is unsourced original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd. For link [6] I get the following message:The given ISBN does not appear to be valid; check for errors copying from the original source. I'll try to find a source for my proposed language (or something similar).Hellbound Hound (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)