Talk:Bible

Rfc at Bible and violence please comment

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Mentioning that Biblical Archeology is not the same as Biblical Pseudoarchaeology

Archaeological and historical research a section from Bible Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doremon764 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) People may assume that Historian are catogarized with the psudoarchaeoligist that are trying to prove Creationism and Noah Ark as real events in history Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeology from the Pseudoarcheology page. Doremon764 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

But, yes, that is the very point: calling someone a "biblical archeologist" is a form of mockery.

Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now. ... For it seems that rather than a “minimalist-maximalist” debate we now had a confrontation between two “archaeologies,” one following the theory and practice of the discipline as generally acknowledged elsewhere, the other continuing the established agenda practice of biblical archaeology—defending the Bible. Some practitioners were apparently confused enough to do both—decry “minimalism,” accept a high degree of biblical non-historicity and yet still “defend the Bible.”

— Philip Davies, Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?

"Biblical archaeologist" is a sophisticated way of saying that such person is irrational. Synonym: "Bible thumper". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doremon764: Christine Hayes stated And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. ... People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should fix up Archaeological and historical research and call it out for what it is trying to make the bible a reality. Apha9 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RGW. Your sentence is too complicated for me to tell if you are for or against the Bible, anyway WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extrabiblical Christian scriptures

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Regarding this deletion...Christian scriptures redirects here, but there are canonical scriptures outside the Bible for these and possibly other denominations. Do you think we should point that redirect somewhere else, add a hatnote to this article, mention this fact in the intro (it's now mentioned in the body), or some other solution? -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think maybe Christian scriptures should redirect to Christian biblical canons and that article should be expanded with a short section on Christian New Religious Movements. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Something like that may fit under Bible#Views. Is "Other religions" supposed to mean anything other than Judaism and Christianity? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That section seems to be more about non-Judeo-Christian views on the the Hebrew or (historical) Christian Bibles. I think maybe we shouldn't be including additional texts that are accepted as scripture but aren't part of any pre-modern canon. I would be surprised if otherwise-reliable LDS sources actually identified the Book of Mormon as historically being a part of the Bible (rather than additional canonical scriptures). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected to Christian biblical canons as suggested. It's tagged for merger with Biblical canon, which actually already explains about the LDS canon, and I was planning to do that merge and move material that relates only to the history thereof to Development of the Old Testament canon and Development of the New Testament canon. (That's split into two articles because otherwise it's just too much to handle.) I can update the redirects to the merge target once that happens. BTW, it seems there are also Christian traditions, both ancient and modern, that reject most or all of the Old Testament and New Testament, such as Cerdonians and Marcionism. There seems to be general agreement that "Bible" refers to some variation of the Old Testament, or Old Testament plus New Testament, and not other collections of Jewish, Samaritan, or Christian scriptures. But for readers not familiar with that distinction, and who might not know that other canons exist, I think a hatnote is warranted. -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this edit [1] of yours sounds reasonable, ideally you should ref it but it is a little WP:BLUESKY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Peshitta

Peshitta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition. Religious affiliation with Syriac Christianity. This form of the bible should get a mention in the Christian Bible section. Doremon764 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if Peshitta should be under Christian Bible or treated as the Septuagint.Doremon764 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the views section is kinda biased

That section mentions how other religions and how critics of Christianity view the Bible. I have no issue mentioning what those groups of people think of the Bible but, let’s not pretend Christians and other Christian denominations have their own interpretations and views of the Bible.

It just seems really biased to them the critics without mentioning what believers thought.

Also seriously “provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible:“

That just sounds like an excuse to quote what a certain individual thinks. CycoMa (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The quote is neither puff nor unduly bashing the Bible: it is a fairly neutral evaluation of the role of the Bible during human history. The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s fair, it was my mistake to remove that quote. But, there was no need to remove the part where I added what Baptist’s thought.CycoMa (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Also, the statement you made that "The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive." is a little problematic itself.

Here is the thing about good and evil, it is merely something we humans created. What is considered good differs from culture to culture. The Aztecs thought sacrificing people to their gods was morally righteous. And even some modern-day cultures think hanging homosexuals is morally righteous. Nothing in nature said that rape was okay or not. CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. And the Bible is not against rape: it has instructions upon how to rape women prisoners of war. Catholics considered these instructions Word of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay I think you have no idea what and why I edited the views section. Because we are going on tangents. CycoMa (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

this is so very not true please DO NOT read (if you do then you will die)