Talk:Michael (archangel)

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

Scriptural vs Scripture[edit]

The article currently reads again (after my edit was reversed): Contents ~ 1 Scriptural references ~ 1.1 Hebrew Bible ~ 1.2 New Testament ~ 1.3 Quran

“Scripture”, noun = a sacred quote FROM the “book”

Is it Scripture? asks a person not familiar with Scripture -- emphasis on the quotation.

“Scriptural”, adj = a teaching, faithful TO the book

Is it scriptural? asks a person not familiar with doctrine -- emphasis on the trueness of the quotation comments.

In my opinion, a lot of Wiki information is not Scriptural. It is Bible-Based, but not True-to-Scripture. Anyway, in the context of these headings, Scripture References” is more accurate & appropriate than Scriptural References”. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The adjective "scriptural" properly describes the references. As an adjective it doesn't mean 'a teaching' as suggested above. It is awkward and unnecessary to juxtapose the two nouns scripture and references for the subheading in question. Your implication about whether something is 'scriptural' in the sense that it is 'consistent with (a particular person's) interpretation of scripture' is outside the context of a secular encyclopedia (and whether something is supposedly 'true to scripture' is almost always a contested POV among various brands of 'believer' anyway).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To illustrate my point, References From Various Scriptures is less awkward than References From Various Scripturals. --Purrhaps (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your 'illustration' is malformed. It's like complaining that it's 'wrong' to say "American people" because it doesn't make sense to say "people from American". Is English your first language?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here goes another shot from Jeffro. I could say is thinking a new experience for you? -- but that would be just replying in (un)kind. I was trying to improve the article. Leave it your way. Take care. --Purrhaps (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I correctly pointed out that your suggestion was not an improvement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
My edit is a definite improvement (illustrated above), but you conveniently side-stepped you shooting down the PERSON, rather than the POINT. --Purrhaps (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. Your 'illustration' demonstrates that you are trying to use these words as if in a religious setting, wherein people very frequently assert undemonstrable unfalsifiable theological opinions as if they are 'really' some kind of 'ultimate truth' (as if so-called 'holy books'—mostly by entirely anonymous authors—are actually some kind of objective 'authority'). Wikipedia articles should not assert that any interpretation of 'scripture' is 'more true' than any other, and the subsection heading should instead simply use the correct grammar, which is the adjective scriptural for identifying references that pertain to scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"References" (eg. Pr.1:7,29; 9:10) should be changed to "Quotations" (ref + the quote).

Pr.1:7 ~ The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pr.1:29 ~ For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Pr.9:10 ~ The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. -- Purrhaps (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The references to verses in Proverbs don't seem to have anything to do with Michael or any other archangels. You seem to be using them as some kind of hypothetical superstitious 'threat' or, at the very least, vapid religious 'advice'. Bible verses are not incantations, and using 'scriptures' at Talk pages in this manner is not appropriate.
As to your actual claim that "references" should be changed to "quotations", you are incorrect. The section is about scriptural references to Michael. Calling them "quotations to Michael" would be nonsensical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We see things so differently, on so many things. "Quotations About Michael from Various Scriptures" is what you seem to be meaning with your title, "Scripture References". ~ And sorry that you took offense & took the verses personally. "References" are just the address where the quotation comes from, but that doesn't seem to communicate. Oh well.-- Purrhaps (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're going around in circles. At no point did I suggest the wording "scripture references", which employs a noun in place of the correct adjective. Scriptural references refers to references to Michael in scriptures. Your verbose alternative is not an improvement.
And it is not a matter of 'taking the verses personally', but the irrelevant selection of scriptures that imply a judgemental religious point of view at a Talk page that is the problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael (archangel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Section: "Islam", Qur'anic citations incorrect, need to be corrected[edit]

Section: "Islam", Qur'anic citation incorrect, need to be corrected. The correct citation is surah 2 ayah 98 (singular), not ayahs 97-98 (plural).

Also the correct citation for a Qur'anic reference, should have the apostrophe in the word "Qur'an", and not without, as also the citation reference should always use "surah" and "ayah", for the division notation, not "chapter" and "verse". The Qur'an is not set up by "chapter", as other texts, but by length. Surah Al Fatiha, is not actually "chapter" 1, but simply given its place by the length, and same for every "surah" unto the last, whether it was meccan or medinian.

Lastly there are many English Qur'anic translations, all differing in some matter of detail. The one cited in this wiki article, is actually from the "Yusuf-Ali" translation, and not from others, such as the al-Hilali-Khan (official Saudi), Shakir, Pickthal, Sarwar, Dawood, etc, all being from the Uthmanic recension and Zaid ibn Thabit, rather than Ubayy bin Kab, or Ibn Mas'ud. It is neither any of the other 26+ Arabic texts, such as the Warsh, Hafs, Ruh, al-Duri, Abu Harith, al-Susi, al-Bazi, etc.

Making these corrections and distinctions, will make this present article more accurate, coherent, consistent and reliable for verifiable information. 172.56.32.229 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)