Talk:Bible

Archives:

• Talk:Bible/Archive
• Archive to September 2005
• Talk:Bible/Archive 3

Weasel words?

THE BIBLE IS JUST USED TO EXPLAIN WHY THINGS WERE GOING ON IN THE PAST AND DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE TRUTH AT ALL!!!

Jerry Falwell has objected to terms like "Wiccan Bible", and I am certain that he is not alone. On the other hand, the objection is far from universal. Since the article lacks footnotes, I will have to go back to the bibliography to see which source documents that, but I am sure it is in one of them. (Wikiholic that I am, I am risking being late for a weekend trip to write even this much -- I'll look when I get back.) Since Storm Rider Jayjg objected to "weasel words", what would be a better way to phrase this? M-U-S-L-I-M not Moslem Similarly, some (but not all) Muslims object to calling the Qur'an the "Moslem Bible" on any or all of three grounds: It is not the divine name for the book, the term recalls past attempts at forced conversion and suggest a second-class status for the Qur'an, and the term is misleading, since Islam reveres the Bible, even citing New Testament passages as prophesying the coming of Mohammed. Without going into excruciating detail, how would Storm Rider Jayjg phrase this? I added an external link to provide a citation.

Some Wiccans object to terms such as the "Wiccan Bible" on grounds that there is no single, authoritative source for Wicca, and often on anti-Christian grounds as well. This I have from primary sources, which is why I was not specific and relied on the better-documented Moslem objections. There may well be secondary sources of which I am not aware.

Again, what would Storm Rider Jayjg suggest as an improvement to avoid weasel-words, yet keep the (relatively minor) point short? Robert A.West (Talk) 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but at the moment I sincerely don't know what you are talking about. I don't recall a recent edit where I called an edit weasel-words. I will review the article's history to see if I can find what you are talking about. If you could point to the exact edit you are referring to, I would be happy to discuss it. Can anyone else help? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the history on the article; you must be talking about the link to an Islamic Bible commentary. I was recently corrected on another article to state "Christian" Bible, rather than just Bible. To me when someone says Bible, they are always talking about the Christian Bible. However, so as not to sound too POV I consented to state Christian bible. I really am not aware of many other books that are referred to as "the Bible". Frankly, I still don't have a problem with stating, "An Islamic commentary on the Bible". I don't think it is being too POV, though obviously one person felt it was. Do other non-Christians feel the same way? Robert, I hope this helps. I never accused you of using weasel words, there just was no explanation of a new link being added. If you have a better descriptor, but all means use it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I misread the page history. It was Jayjg [1] who marked the point citation needed and also commented "sigh. Weasel-words" in the edit summary. While I can go back and find exhibit exactly where I got that from, I am not sure what Jayjg thinks is weasel-wording. My apologies for any confusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

As with any other popular article, the See also and External links sections are getting out of hand, along with an excess of wikilinks in the article. I see that a few months back there was some disagreement over which external links were appropriate to keep. Per the guidelines at WP:EL, and in the interest of keeping the links limited and relevant, I'd suggest two links tops to websites which provide different translations (i.e. www.biblegateway.com), as there's plenty of duplication; a few to pro and con sites criticizing/supporting the Bible which encompass a broad variety of opinions; and another couple to sites examining significant historic/cultural contributions of the Bible, so long as they take a scholarly view. I don't see links to Bible studies, churches, or individual faith groups as being appropriate. I realize that there may be some subjectivity to those suggsetions, so I'd like to hear from others before starting to edit the list.

Concerning the See also section and wikilinks, in the next few days (I hope), I'll try to trim it down some. I'd appreciate having some editors check the difference to make sure I wasn't overzealous in removing repeated links. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Without taking the time right now to review the actual links there now, I think you're general ideas of what links to keep sound quite appropriate. Wesley 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For those monitoring this, please look over the changes I've made. Two issues came up as I went about cleaning up:

1. The sections The canonization of the Bible, Bible versions and translations and The introduction of chapters and verses all frequently repeat content found elsewhere in the article, but also contain new, significant information. They could probably be merged or at least shortened. Anybody else see a need for this?
2. I changed "Bible Trivia" to "Widely-quoted facts abot the Bible" to give at least an air of encyclopedic content. Nonetheless, I'm not sure if this section is all that appropriate for Wikipedia... almost looks like fancruft, in a religious sense. Is it really necessary to list the amount of words in the Bible, the middle verse, etc etc? It can be easily found elsewhere on the web; I would have no objection to providing an external link which would do just that.

Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial transclusion (tool useful for Bible texts)

Hi. I would like to direct contributors' attention to a tentative software suggestion on the partial transclusion of texts, mostly intended for use at Wikisource, and described on my user page there. This would allow for the flexible presentation of all classical texts that exist in numerous complementary versions or with multiple commentaries (such as the Bible).

Please leave feedback on the idea (approval/disapproval, suggestions) at my Wikisource talk page. Dovi 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cracking the Code

There has been no discussion pro or con about the Modernity translation under Calan's response above, so let's enter into a little sensationalism. Should Wikipedia enter into the fray, well go offsite [2](Wikia, anyway). The discussion should not be part of the Bible, but Modernity is the only translation to present Mary Magdalene as Jesus' favorite student, with pictures, word pictures , that is. Of course, you have to fill in the blanks, like Chapter 4 through 21. I have included my random thoughts on both sides of the question which can be molded into an article or discussed there at Wikia. - Athrash | ^Talk 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Widely-quoted facts about the Bible

The "Widely-quoted facts about the Bible" section seems largely inappropriate for this article. First, as was mentioned here and Talk:Bible#Cleanup, this list of what is essentially random trivia seems rather un-encyclopedic.

Since that has already been pointed out elsewhere, though, I'd like to point out a separate issue: most of the facts aren't about the Bible, they are about specific translations or versions of the Bible. Look at all the facts that mention "in the King James Version". If these facts are worth keeping, they should be in the King James Version of the Bible article. Even many of the ones that don't mention the KJV seem to be highly translation-dependent, such as the number of chapters and verses.

If this section must be kept, then my suggestion is to reduce this section to a short list of links to other articles. For example (and I realize this may be a bit rough, it's only meant to illustrate):

Trivia <-- should be a heading, but I don't want to disrupt the talk page with that markup
Some interesting trivia about the Bible is found in other articles.

• Jesus wept, often cited as the shortest verse in the Bible
• The middle verse of the Bible
• Mahershalalhashbaz, often cited as the longest word in the Bible.
• King James Version trivia <-- link to a new section in King James Version of the Bible that contains this trivia

I hesitate to make these changes myself, especially without saying anything, because I have a suspicion some people might disagree. Any comments? -- Zawersh 08:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As this has been brought up before, I'm going to be bold and remove it. There are countless Bible fact/trivia sites on the internet which contain this type of information, and it's not encyclopedic — think of how silly it would be to have similar details on middle sentence, longest name, and so forth on Moby Dick or Julius Caesar. Out of curiosity, do other religious faiths do this with their religious texts? Tijuana Brass^E@ 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you T. Brass; that section has long been a thorn in my side. Yes, I can see how some might find it interesting, but it is such trivial information. If it absolutely needs to exist it should be in its own article on Bible trivia. Again, thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs in-line citations

I think a topic likes this needs a higher degree of detail in terms of citiations. I'm quite suprised that there aren't any in this article, after such a long period of discussion.--P-Chan 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That the deuterocanonical texts aren't in the Septuagint earlier than the 4th century

Removed the sentence: "(It should however be noted that no Septuagint that predates the fourth century contains the Deuterocanonical texts)"

The statement does not concur to the general view held on various articles discussing the deuterocanonical books that they are included (either explicitly or implied) in the septuagint since the first century. Furthermore these books appear in the writings of ancient Christians as early as the second century (church fathers and notable leaders), effectively debunking the claim that they aren't in the texts which existed before the fourth century. Max Sterling 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

pseudopigraphal

Due to the recent publicity of the Book of Thomas and the Book of Judas, shouldn't there be a section on the Pseudopigraphal texts associated with the bible? Letter of I Clement alone warrents some mention. I wouldn't say this but we seem to be using the term apocrypha for only the deuterocannonical texts of the catholic church. That warrents some looking at as well Sethwoodworth 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is all such material should be in separate articles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, of course with links in this article and perhaps very concise summaries (since the creation of the "apocrypha" coincides with the canonization of the "Bible.") (i.e. perhaps we agree that there should be a pseuda. article).Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Off-En-Sive!

"The Protestant Old Testament, which is not a Protestant Old Testament but a Roman Catholic Old Testament canon minus the seven Deuterocanonical books" Because, you know, they just stole Our wholy original book, edited it, and called it their own! Those meanies. This line is terribly offensive :P WookMuff 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The comma'd section is totally unnecessary. I removed it. – Zawersh 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, a very nice edit that, clean and concise. WookMuff 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

spoiler tag?

I know this is going to bug people, but in all fairness, it is a book, it does have a plot (not a well written one, but all the same, a plot), and characters... is there any reason that it should be exempt from the usual formatting for wiki articles about books? suppose someone hasn't read it and doesn't want the ending spoiled? It always ruins a novel for me when someone doesn't properly indicate spoliers...--64.12.116.6 03:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe spoiler tags could be added around the specific sections that actually cover the content in any detail. I wouldn't put a blanket warning at the top because a lot of the article is about its history and influence in a very general way, that doesn't give away anything. But used judiciously around the right sections, I could go along with that. Wesley 14:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wahahhahahahahahohoho! ROFL! That one cracked me up big time. You were not serious were ya? Ah well fun none the less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.44.253 (talk)

@Unsigned (above): Dude are you some religious nutjob? Seriously, get a life. Wesley here has an idea to present, and you're not helping. @Wesley: Good idea. Maybe we should implement it in a seperate article? Just a thought. 71.128.93.194 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A spoiler tag on the Bible is ludicrous, and looks like an absurdist joke. "Spoiler warning: Jesus doesn't stay dead." Come on. Carlo 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really fits. The Bible isn't so much meant to be read from cover to cover. Each book contained within, perhaps, acts as a self-contained story, so a "spoiler" tag within an article for each book (for instance, Gospel of John) may be appropriate. I think labeling the entirity of the Bible as a "novel" worthy of a spoiler tag smacks of ignorance (or arrogance) regarding it's everyday usage. --EazieCheeze 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. The spoiler tags are reserved for works of fiction and illusion, and not for works that claim to be factual narratives. For example, the Bible. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it to be factual or ficitonal, what matters is how the author presents the work, and how the work presents itself. Save for some short parables, the Bible claims to be true and factual, right? So no spoiler tags, in my opinion. --GunnarRene 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Language

I've expanded the section on the original language as well as provided sources supporting the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but I'm afraid I didn't reference it properlly. The references are:

1) Paul Allan Mirecki, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 624

2) Translated by Rev. V. H. Stanton, D.D., Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. Author of “Gospels” in the Dictionary of the Bible

So if somebody can fix that up and properlly cite these two people in accordance with the rest of the article, t'would be nice. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 07:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

how do I do this, and the web keeps changing, will i find this again?--67.118.219.60 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)ina--67.118.219.60 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Article ranking

While this is an excellent overview article, there is a real need for an article on scripture from a Catholic understanding. I am not ranking this article as low importantce as a topic but there is another article entirely that needs to be written. Vaquero100 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening is crappy

It must be fixed. I'll outline the problems and deficiencies in point form:

• It doesn't do much to define Bible. Who wrote it, what books are in it, etc.
• Instead, it just dives into interpretational debates, which are presented from one side.
• What does "liberal" mean in this sense? Most Calvinists I know affirm the free agency of mankind: they are compatibilists. So why are these denominations "free will"? Where did the term "liberal free will denomination" come from and why does it apply to Methodists and Episcopalians?
• The lines about "inspiration" and "imperfect men" just confuse those who don't know what various people claim about the bible already.

I was expecting much more when I came to this page. Srnec 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text from introduction

I have removed the following from the intro, and am placing it here in case any of it has future value elsewhere in this or another article. The material was far too specific for the intro. It also is largely speculative and unsourced. It is very stereotypic and simplistic too, and attempts to make a liberal/conservative stereotype as well as a literalist/symbolic stereotype which is questionable at best. Most importantly, it contains too many specific issues that simply do not belong in the introduction to this article. Here is the material I removed ... Kenosis 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The more conservative literalist denominations interpret the term "Word" as a mandate to compel a fundamentalist interpretation of the text, while liberal denominations may interpret the term "Word" as a metaphor for Jesus; hence the name of God is the Word, not the book itself. Liberal free will denominations tend to give the teachings of Jesus greater weight, while more conservative literalists may not. Both views have clashed over the concept of sin, with strict Calvinist and Reformed denominations interpreting the term "flesh" as "sin nature" in the English text, placing blame upon mankind for its Fall. Southern Baptists tend to accept the Calvinist assertion of a "sin nature." On the other hand, liberal free will denominations such as Methodists and Episcopalians, follow the Council of Trent's determination of sin as a "wounded nature," placing blame upon evil for its affliction of mankind. These divergent views of the Bible have fomented division on various issues including salvation throughout Christian history and continue to do so. 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the full removal of this text. Firstly, it needs a lot more technical NPOV terminology. For instance "strict Calvinist" - "Liberal free will" are POV. Further, the first line of that paragraph is misleading. John 1:1 calls Jesus the Word (λογος) of God. Jesus' title as the Word of God is not in dispute by "literalist fundamentalist" or frankly anyone who accepts the Canonosity of the Gospel of John. It is a name for Jesus when the gospel according to John's prologue was claiming the preexistance of the one called Jesus. Further, liberals and conservatives both consider the bible, as the Word of God, that to say the book in which the teachings of the followers of God are contained. The difference is that some believe this to be completely inspired by God, word for word, to the point that the writers personality is secondary to God's inspiration. Frankly, and most basic, this discussion is not inclusive of the Jewish Scripture, which this article includes. If it were a discussion on the Christian canon alone, then perhaps this would be appropriate (in a greatly edited form) in the prologue's synopsis. But since it includes Jewish scripture, this is very inappropriate as a synopsis that applies to the whole article. Hopquick 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the intro because it is not a synopsis of what the bible is, but rather introduces a new concept: Interpretation. It probably is a hold out from the previously removed quote above.

• Wide variations exist in interpretation and acceptance of the accuracy and legitimacy of various books and passages. Some denominations emphasize a strict literal interpretation, while others view the text more symbolically, or as a combination of literal truth and symbolism; yet others view the Bible as a story of a people in history struggling to understand a living God. Hopquick 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section on books not included in the Bible

This was added to the article by 213.130.121.182 . It is pasted here for further research:

• The canon that was put together by Emperor Constantine was actually lost for almost a century.It so happens that the list of books contained by Eusebius, the one who was given the responsibility of gathering the books of the canon actually had many more books than the Bible we have today.There were many others that did not make it into the Bible as they were deemed unsuitable JBogdan 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus for inclusion in the article, this basic insight can fairly readily be cited to, for example, Justo Gonzalez' History of Christian Thought, or even through the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers material. ... Kenosis 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to put a section specific "see also" to biblical canon.70.177.68.209 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Those facts are already substantiated in this article.70.177.68.209 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

isnt bible written in armaic

isnt bible written in armaic. i have enough proof for that. as a matter of fact greek goes from left to right (like sanskrit or english), while armaic goes from right to left (like arabic and hebrew). if anyone has reliable source that bible was written in a language that went from left to right instead of right to left than plz share. nids 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm...the bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. And I have proof. Just offline. As for the NT, with the exception of perhaps Matthew, all of the NT was written in KOINE (Greek). And by Bible do you mean Tanakh, Apocrypha, Christian New Testament, or some mixture?70.177.68.209 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

by bible i mean new testament. and basically everything concerning life of jesus christ, and all the books that are revered by christians but NOT by jews.

If this is what you mean by Bible, say "New Testament" or "Christian Bible," not just "Bible" SR

u mean bible was written in a script which goes from left to right, while quran and other books of old testament were written in a script which goes from right to left. nids 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Format

Could we maybe format the top of the page a little better - the Judaism template sticks down awkwardly, and the whole thing looks awfully cluttered. Lostcaesar 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to address this concern (with which I agree) by this edit. Note I put Christianity on top in the infobox since the Judaism template comes first in the article - to try to avoid the appearance of bias --Trödel 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Trödel, your changes are a big improvement. --Mikebrand 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh much better Lostcaesar 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The canonization of the Bible

I think this section needs more info. As yet, it only really discusses the deuterocanonical / apocryphal Old Testament books. It doesn’t discuss the development of the New Testament canon at all. It doesn’t mention Damasus or the fourth and early fifth century councils. It doesn’t mention reformation debate about Song of Song or some of the general epistles. I think we could at least mention these and then give the proper links. Lostcaesar 08:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thee is a separate linked article on the Biblical Canon. Check out that aticle. Our goal is to have two (or more) articles that do not repeat information but that complement one another so all together they are comprehensive. user:Slrubenstein

That article doesn't have much on this either, and likewise the material already in the "canonization of the Bible" section is covered in other places, so the material here is already redundant. I think we should have a brief summary with proper links to the main articles. no? Lostcaesar 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree. Let us see what others think. I just weant to make sure you know to coordinate your efforts on the two articles, that´s all, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

textual changes

someone needs to deal with textual changes made to the bible (ie "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" was not in the original gospel). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.155.39 (talk • contribs) .

Issues to Address:

Intro: Tanakh is not synonymous with the Old Testament if one includes the deuteron-canonical books of the Septuagint. The comment about a different numbering for the Ten Commandments is unnecessary, the actual text of the Bible does not have numbers, and this is about the Bible. The information about Biblical interpretative methods should be in its own paragraph.

Distribution: That 5 billion copies of the Bible have been sold since 1815 needs a reference. That the Bible is "considered" to be the most stolen book "in some cities" is not relevant to distribution. The comment about the Bible influencing "Western Civilization" completely ignores the Near Eastern civilization of Byzantium and mistakenly labels Christianity as a "Western" religion. That the word "Bible is used to describe texts of other faiths" is irrelevant to distribution, it might have a place in the intro.

the four sources: This section seems out of place and a bit disorganized; it discusses nineteenth century literary criticism, divine inspiration, and divine commandments – an odd assortment.

Nevi'im The final comment about "heroes" and "antiheroes" seems to be a certain judgement (PoV) based on a particular literary reading of the plot of the collection of books. It doesn't seem appropriate in its current form and place.

Ketuvim: What does it mean to say that these were the last books to be "canonized" – the process of discerning a canon needs more description, otherwise this statement just floats. Who canonized it, when, on what criteria, what was "last" about this, &c.?

Translations and editions: I think the discussion of the Septuagint ought to be reconciled with the like discussion under the "Christian Bible" section, especially since it has had a far greater impact on Christianity than on Judaism. This would help the section on the Septuagint there, which lacks a proper introduction.

The Christian Bible: Again, "Hebrew Scriptures" is not synonymous with "Old Testament" except outside of Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. I have never heard the Old Testament called the "first testament" – source? The sentence "there are many different translations of the Bible in current use" just hangs there with no point other than to state the obvious.

Theology: This section sounds weak to me, I have nothing specific, but it must either be out of place, of missing sufficient content. To me, just saying "there are a whole lot of opinions" doesn't really serve the purpose of giving information – perhaps a proper discussion of those opinions, in its own section, would do well.

Original Language: The mention of different "text-types" seems out of place – what does this have to do with "language"? This brings me to my point that I think we need a real section and explanation given of the manuscript traditions of the Bible, especially since the "historic editions" section is very very light on this. The passage below the quote says that "logia" is being translated as "words", but in the quote it is untranslated.

historic editions: Again, as stated about, this cuts right to the printed text, and I think we need a section on the manuscripts available prior to Gutenberg (or Erasmus), and that it should come first. There is only a minor discussion of these earlier texts, and it is at the end, oddly. In my understanding the only part of Erasmus's edition not taken from Greek was the last sentence of Revelation – the paragraph reads as though he took a lot more, which is correct? The paragraph says that some papyrus fragments have been found dating "within a few decades" of the composition of the text – like what! This needs a source. If by "fragment" we mean an actual scrap of paper (which is not what "fragment" necessarily means when talking about ancient texts) then I know of no such case except perhaps a tiny scrap of Mark, which cannot really be used to correct other manuscripts due to is brevity.

Canonization of the Bible: See my previous post in talk

Bible versions This section has good information, but it is all disjoined. We need to make proper sections and move this all into its right place.

Lostcaesar 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

quotes from bible about first six days

can somebody provide the quotes from bible regarding the first six days of the creation. i have a faint idea, i think the earth was created on the first day and sun on 4th day, while land and land plants on the third day. nids 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit

About the only change I made that might cause a stir is as follows. I changed the following passage from:

The Bible as used by the majority of Christians comprises the Hebrew Scripture, known to Christians as the Old Testament or First Testament; and the New Testament, which relates the life and teachings of Jesus, the letters of St Paul and other disciples to the early church and the book of Revelation. For Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants, the Deuterocanonical books (various writings important in the Second-Temple period of Judaism) are considered to be part of the Old Testament.

To this:

The Bible as used by the majority of Christians includes the Hebrew Scripture and the Deuterocanonical books (various writings important in the Second-Temple period of Judaism); and the New Testament, which relates the life and teachings of Jesus, the letters of St Paul and other disciples to the early church and the book of Revelation. The Deuterocanonical books are not used by some Protestants.

Since the first sentence read "The Bible as used by the majority of Christians…" I thought the list should include the Deuterocanonical books, since, after all, that is the Bible used by the majority of Christians. All the information, other than this rearrangement, remained the same.

Lostcaesar 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

.

"Distribution

The Bible is the most widely distributed book in the world. Both Hebrew Scripture and the Christian Bible have been translated more times and into more languages — more than 2,100 languages in all — than any other book. It is said that more than five billion copies of the Bible have been sold since 1815, making it the best-selling book of all-time."

The number is far greater than five billion[3] (one has to count all the different years' statistics).

The distribution only for 2005 alone was 372 585 792.

Here's some more figures:

• 1996: 19 370 487 (19,3 million)
• 1997: 20 035 360 (20 million)
• 1998: 585 023 708 (500 million/ half a billion)
• 1999: 627 925 260 (600 million/ more than half a billion)
• 2000: 633 335 638 (600 million/ more than half a billion)
• 2001: 390 544 073 (300 million)
• 2002: 578 029 863 (500 million/ half a billion)
• 2003: 431 741 291 (400 million)
• 2005: 372 585 792 (300 million)

Total: 3 286 005 680

Considering these are the total recorded number of copies sold over a period of nine years, it is absurd to imply that the overall total of Bibles sold is five billion. In just nine years the figure is already at 3,2 billion. Maybe it should be made clear:

• If the Bibles were sold to individuals or simply major distributors
• Which term of billion is used, e.g.:

1. 1 000 000 000 (one thousand million: used by most English-speaking countries (American and usual modern British meaning); or
2. 1 000 000 000 000 (one million million: used by most other countries outside Asia (older British meaning))

I think it should be clarified that this number is only the number of distributed Bibles, not necessarily the number of Bibles paid for with money.

It would be appreciated if someone would find some statistics about previous years. --Scotteh 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of it's content, the bible I mean

I've read a lot of books and watched a lot of docos from both sides, ones that go out of the way to prove the bible is historically factual and the be all end all to life, to people casually mentioning that they discovered summat that fits into the bibles claims and timelines and the flip side people saying that they have found things in the bible to be total rubbish or not true (such as Jericho was already in ruins from an earthquake years earlier before the Christians came in, so rather than a valient and majestic conquest, it would have been more like a slaughter on the shanty towns of the people the Christians found when they got there) and of course books and programs going out of their way to prove the bible as a complete farse.

In any case, my question is, why is this article sort of saying that the bible is all fact without bias, and even touches on that it is a historically accurate artifact. Perhaps my words are muddled here, is anyone else understanding? it is hard to know if this article is talking about the bible baseed on unbiased research into it, or if it is under the impression that because it is THE Christian book that you don't need to question if it is accurate or not, you just need to push it as fact? JayKeaton 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article should make any argument about the accuracy or the reliability of the Bible - but, to be fair, I do not think it does (if you come across any sentences that explicitly claim the Bible is accurate or reliable, you should feel free to change them to "Some people believe" or something like that. My take on this article is that it is just descriptive, stating what the Bible is and what it says without making any judgement one way or another as to its historical accuracy. You should follow links to other articles that are explicitly about the historicity of the Bible and there you will find more of the discussion i think you were expecting. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

In my view (as a devout Christian), mentioning massacres that have the blessing of God or the practice of polygamy is not POV. It's stated in the Bible and is there for anybody to see. We should not deny that there are troubling passages in the Bible, that would be POV. From a Christian perspective, a discussion about this topic and how to interpret them would be beneficial, but that particular disucssion is of course not suited for an article in Wikipedia.JdeJ 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently the section is not natural in the spirit of Wikipdedia Five Pillars Neutral Policy and will need additional content to balance. Given the amount of content that is already in the Criticism of the Bible section, this would be the most appropriate place to make these edits and additions. In addition there are already numerous references to other sections on Criticism (See Also Section:Biblical scholarship and criticism)

• Biblical archaeology
• Dating the Bible
• Bible conspiracy theory
• Biblical inerrancy
• Internal consistency and the Bible
• Criticism of the Bible
• Animals in the Bible

There are several logical reasons for this suggestion.

1. Reduction of duplicate content
2. Reduction in effort to edit
3. Better Organization of thought and flow
4. Isolation of controversial subjects to pages better suited for discussion

I would suggest that the contents of this section be merged with the Criticism of the Bible.

Znuttyone 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, although I appreciate your well articulated argument. In this rather long article, I don't think that the short section on criticism creates any lack of balance, quite the opposite. If you compare this article with the article on the Book of Mormon, you will find that the criticism included in that article in miuch longer than in this article. I don't see any problem in briefly mentionin the main parts that attract criticism and point to the articles that deals more in-depth with the issues. Isber 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I took "a living" out of "a living God" from the introduction. They aren't trying to understand "a" god (notice the lower case g), they are trying to understand God. Also, it's pointless to say "living God". For example I don't introduce myself as the living Eric. People don't say "I'm trying to get a better understanding of the living Regis Philbin."Typhoid Orchid 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing about the Introduction, it doesn't say anything about the people that think the Bible is bunk (no, I'm not in that catagory). It asumes that everyone believes in the Bible to some extent or another. Typhoid Orchid 23:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"as there are archeological sites that match biblical descriptions of events and places, including possible sites for Sodom and Gomorrah..." How does a "possible site" equate to a definite archeological site? The sites are being debated over now and hardly any resectable acheologists think that they are the true sites. This is hardly proof and should not be listed under an archeological site that matches biblical descriptions.

Typhoid Orchid 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)