Talk:Books of Kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Chronological Impossibility?[edit]

From the article: "The standard Hebrew text of Kings presents an impossible chronology.[21] To take just a single example, Omri's accession to the throne of Israel in the 31st year of Asa of Judah (1 Kings 16:23) cannot follow the death of his predecessor Zimri in the 27th year of Asa (1 Kings 16:15)"

How can a four year gap between rulers make any suggestion of chronological impossibility? The reason for the gap is supported internally and immediately in the biblical text: "Then the people of Israel were split into two factions; half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri" 1 Kings 16:21 (New International Version)

I suggest immediate deletion of the section.

Typenolies (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is EXTREMELY POV and the whole thing needs a re-write. It is written from the perspective of someone who is negatively biased. The sources cited are all sources that are chosen specifically to buttress their negative bias. It's just poor writing and research. 99.0.37.176 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What you are talking about is the well-known ugly side of wikipedia - arrogant, biased editors who think all articles about religion have to reflect their personal biases and negative opinions, and try to make wikipedia into a propaganda vehicle to spoonfeed readers only the "teaching" they want them to learn. Then they have the gall to pretend that is "neutrality". As long as arbcom looks the other way on these flagrant violations and their sysops even encourage them, this kind of POV crap is going to be rampant I'm afraid. Wikipedia is one of the worst sources you can possibly use for a neutral assessment of religion topics, almost any other source from a different website would be more fair and balanced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The above comments are too generalised to be useful. The article appears neutral to me, it is all cited to WP:RS, if people have specific edits to suggest, that would be helpful.Smeat75 (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an absurdly biased article that ought to deleted and completely rewritten. Articles like this leave Wikipedia with absolutely no credibility.

I think this must be right. I re-read the passage a few times to try to work out what it was saying. Clearly there is nothing impossible about king A dying and king B succeeding him as king a few years later. Sometimes monarchs take a while to secure their position before they feel sufficiently settled. Of course we might think it was unlikely that such a long gap existed or we might not believe the text, that is OK, but to say it is "impossible" seems just plain wrong. Sadly I don't have access to the references cited and there is no quotation of what they say. I too, would be happier if this was deleted. The Omri article has no difficulty with the chronology. Francis Davey (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted para from lead summarising Kings[edit]

I deleted the para in the lead that summarises Kings (2nd para) because it's entirely unsourced. WhenI wrote it many months ago I must have had some source in front of me, but now I have no idea what it was. I'll look for something. In the meantime, this is the deleted para:

"Kings begins with the death of David, to whom Yahweh, the God of Israel, has promised an eternal dynasty, and the succession of his son Solomon. Solomon is praised for his wisdom and wealth, but he offends Yahweh by allowing other gods to be worshiped in Jerusalem. God therefore breaks the kingdom in two, with David's line reigning in the southern kingdom of Judah with a separate kingdom of Israel in the north. The kings of Israel are uniformly evil, allowing gods other than Yahweh to be worshiped, and eventually God brings about the destruction of the kingdom. A few of the kings of Judah are good, but most are evil, and eventually God destroys this kingdom also." PiCo (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

“2 Kings”, 2Kings”, “Kings II”, “II Kings”[edit]

Please could there be learned comment on the name of the second book: “2 Kings”, 2Kings”, “Kings II”, “II Kings”? JDAWiseman (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Two Books in Hebrew Bible[edit]

Printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) also have I Kings and II Kings. I just have to open my Hebrew bible and there they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHDanan (talkcontribs) 22:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)