Talk:Bible

Archives:

• Talk:Bible/Archive
• Archive to September 2005
• Talk:Bible/Archive 3
• Talk:Bible/Archive 4

True?

However, according to scholars, inspiration is not extended to the transmitted texts or the translation of those texts; rather, it is the original documents (called the autographa) that are inspired.

I changed the word scholars to the names Zuck and Campbell, since that is all the reference supported. I wonder how true this claim is concerning Christianity. Certain Christian groups, it would seem, teach something different. For example, certain ecumenical councils have accepted parts of texts as inspired that, it would seem, were not part of the autograph; also, Matthew in its Greek version seems to be the accepted text, without trouble over searching for any Hebrew original. Whatever the case, the autographs being lost it seems that often the role of the Christian Church in the development of scripture is incorporated by many theological interpretations, and this “back to basics scholarly reconstruction of the autograph” seems to be a particularly arcane view of inspiration. Lostcaesar 07:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most common Protestant view. For example, see article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars. -- Cat Whisperer 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we can cite that source in reference to protestant beliefs. Lostcaesar 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Added the additional references suggested and modified verbiage to match. As noted by the references this view is not new. Just like any any study as new evidences and arguments are put forth, clarification is needed. Charles Ryrie writes in 'Basic Theology’ on page 67

"While many theological viewpoints would be willing to say the Bible is inspired, one finds little uniformity as to what is meant by inspiration. Some focus it on the writers; others, on the writings; on the readers. Some relate it to the general message of the Bible; others, to the thoughts; still others, to the words. Some include inerrancy; many don’t. Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching."

Look at any field of study or science and you find the same process, as people come together and debate, better understanding of others views and concerns are rooted out and in the end progress and clarification are made. No matter if the field is Evolution, Medicine, Physics, or Theological studies, facts are assimilated, hypothesis and theories formulated, tested and debated to the point where there is acceptance and papers are written.

Thanks for you comments and suggestions Lostcaesar and Cat Whisperer.

Znuttyone 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Material from intro put here for possible use in a place other than the introduction

I removed this paragraph from the intro because: (1) The first sentence, while apparently true, is a specific historical insight that begs many questions about the secular and religious scholarly work over the past several centuries; there's a whole book to write just on that one issue. (2)The second sentence confuses secular and religious scholarly work, and part of it is also overly specific for the intro (specific possibilities of archaeological sites matching up with biblical descriptions-- there's a whole book's worth of material right there too). ... Kenosis 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution in Europe and America brought skepticism regarding the divine origin and historical accuracy of the Bible. Some scholars continue to use the Bible as a historical document, as there are archeological sites that match biblical descriptions of events and places, including possible sites for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the ruins remaining after the fall of Jericho. ... 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the previous removal from the intro. This is good stuff, but too POV and too specific for the intro of this article. It includes sources for the Chicago statement on inerrancy, and a historical assertion of perceived inerrancy by Geisler and Nix, as well as a very specific reference to Philo of Alexandria as a citation to belief in sacred texts.

• Belief in sacred texts is attested to in Jewish antiquity, and this belief can also be seen in the earliest of Christian writings. Various texts of the Bible mention Divine agency in relation to prophetic writings, the most explicit being 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." However, the Bible neither gives a list of which texts are inspired and their exact contents, nor a precise theological definition of what inspiration entails.

• In their book A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix wrote that the: "process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God, but the result of this process is a verbal, plenary, inerrant, and authoritative record." Some biblical scholars, particularly Evangelicals, associate inspiration with only the original text; for example, the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy asserted that inspiration applied only to the "autographic text of Scripture". ... 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Agree the intro is not really an intro, seems to be a place people have placed items of criticism rather than facts. I agree with a previous post, we need more 'introductory type info' number of books, authors, current scholars view so dates written etc.. am on the road this week, will look at this next week and see if I can come up with something all can agree on. Znuttyone 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Was a POV/biased article until...

This article hada "Criticism of the Bible" section but not a "Advocacy of the Bible" section. I added a Advocacy of the Bible section. ken 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Cleanup again

There are some misspellings on the tagged article, but I can't verify what the correct spelling is. Please someone fix it.

Alexander Gibson

I we reverting some obvious vandalism on this article when I also reverted the addition of the name "Alexander Gibson" to the criticism section. There was no link to this person and no reference as to why he was added, so I am assuming that it was vandalism as well. If this is a mistake, please add the name back in along with a Wiki link or a reference. -Orayzio 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of presentation

WHy is the the first section in an article for the Bible a big reproduction of the Tanakh article? The Tanakh has it's own article. I'm considering a drastic change to this article along the lines of reordering the presentation of the info and removing duplicated article type info. Thoughts? --Home Computer 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For Jews, the Tanackh is the Bible. NPOV requires that we include not just the Christian Bible but the Jewish Bible as well. Since many books of the Christian Bible were written after the books in the Hebrew Bible, I think it makes sense regarding the order of presentation to present the Hebrew Bible first. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the overlap of the Jewish Bible with the first section of the Christian Bible means that the arrangement seems logical to me. Lostcaesar 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

well no kidding. My point is, there allready IS an article for the Tanackh. The Christian Bible mainpage is this one. Jews don't refer to thier text as "the Jewish bible". I am going to remove all duplicated material soon except for a concise intro to the main discussion unless there is a wikifiable reason not to.. Remember, the phrase Bible refers to the Chritian text 99% of the time. And the Hebrew Bible has a great page in and of itself and doesn't need to be duplicated. Peace. --Home Computer 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe for you Bible means Christian Bible 99% of the time. for me it means Tanakh 100% of the time. So, I gues you and I have different points of view. Guess what? this is why we have an NPOV policy. both views must be represented in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Allright sorry for getting sarcastic, almost always the term Bible means Old and New testaments of the Christian text. Almost never does the term Bible mean "just the old testament". Actually, lets move this discussion down below where others have joined if you dont mind. --Home Computer 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandelism

Some keeps putting vandelism into the article, such as:

• God said "thou must sex daily, or thine dang wilst fallith off, like a lepers nose"

Vandelism is against the Wikipedia rules. Whoever's doing it, STOP!!!

Merge TNK section with Old Testament section

I am preparing to slim down and reorganize some of this article. It seems pointless to me to include "The Old testament" in a the section on the "Christian Bible" and the Tanak in the section on the "Hebrew Bible". In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there. For other uses of the word Bible (eg Satanic Bible, Mechanics Bible, Koran, whatever) the disambiguation page should serve well. As to the material related to Judaism, include only what is pertinant the discussion on what is commonly called the Bible.. so maybe a concise few paragraphs on History, pre Christ cannonicity, translation, etc. Lets get this article up to par. and as always CITE!!! Don't do original research here, CITE the NOTable Experts. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, before any of this happens, we should probably reach consensus that this article should be about the Christian Bible. As it stands, the article is currently about the broader concept of the Bible in the Judeo-Christian traditions. We have an article about the term "Hebrew Bible" which is used by acedemics to describe the set of books called the Old Testament by Christians, and the Tanakh by Jews. So those two articles are basically POV forks of the same topic. Then we have this article, which describes both the Christian Bible, and the Jewish Bible. It seems like there is a lot of redundent material on wikipedia, but I personally feel that the article, in order to be NPOV, should cover both Christian and Jewish bibles. Maybe we can condense material that is already covered in spinout articles, but I think it would be a step in the wrong direction to cut the Jewish POV out of this article, and make the word Bible on wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with Christian scriptures|Andrew c]] 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the section on the Hebrew Bible or not include what other religions use as thier holy texts but The focus needs to be squarely on what people consider the Bible. Jews do not call thier sacred texts the Jewish Bible, Jews don't call it the Hebrew Bible.. The first big section in the article on "THE BIBLE" should consist of what is commonly considered the Bible. --Home Computer 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "In an effort to make this a class act article I suggest the following: Focus on the theme Christian "Bible" and divide and explain from there" is not a plan for a class act article, it is a plan for a major NPOV violation. "The Bible" as such must include the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Tanach is not the same thing as the Old Testament. If anything, this article could benefit from some more explanation as to why they are not the same. I agree that there are some redundancies. Perhaps this page should not even exist, and should serve as a disambiguation page for the articles on the Biblical canon, Tanakh, and Christian Bible. I suspect that all valid information in this article can be (if it is not already0 distributed among those three articles. But let's have some discussion before making such a change. In the meantime, if the article is "Bible" any attempt to rewrite this from an explicitly Christian POV is a violation of NPOV and I will revert it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Slurb, please review the article Tanack. it is not the same as saying "Jewish Bible" The Tanack actually is only the books of the Herew origin that Christians use as well. It actually is the same thing as the old testament as held by protestant Christian religions. --Home Computer 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the two above statements by Andrew and Slrub, and I would like to make the following observations. Part of the confusion I think is on the use of phrases like "Jewish Bible" and "Hebrew Bible". The proper term is Tanakh; furthermore, calling the Old Testament any of the three aforementioned labels is inaccurate. As has been stated previously, these are not the same. The article here nicely avoids this mistake, but many other articles on wikipedia mistakenly treat "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as synonyms. If there is any improvement to be made to end confusion, it should be on the proper use of these terms. As for removing the content about the Tanakh / Jewish bible from this page, as said above, I reject this, for many reasons, not least of which because it would remove vital information — one's understanding of the Christian bible declines when it is severed from its Jewish roots and context. This is an article on the Bible: a Judeo-Christian entity.Lostcaesar 12:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostceaser, do you oppose my proposal to turn this into a disambiguation page for Biblical canon (which would describe the process by which different canons formed, and what the differences are between different canons), Tanakh and a new article, Christian Bibles? By the way, I am not committed to this proposal and have no objection if everyone else wants to keep this article more or less as it is. But I'd like to know your reasoning regarding the proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn over what we should do. My first reaction to turning this page into a disambig page was positive. But I was confused on how a Christian Bibles article would look (would it just be this article minus the Hebrew Bible section?), and how this differed from Home Computer's suggestion. It seems like every section we would like to cover has a spinout article to cover it, so we face a lot of the same issues that come up at Jesus. I think it may be best to keep the article in the current format, but perhaps doing a better job of sumarizing content that is covered in the spinout articles.--Andrew c 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Slruben, I am really not sure; my first reaction is, on the one hand, that restructuring is needed, but on the other hand the Bible is a richer concept than just a canonical list, and it is the richer concept that I think people regularly identify with the Bible. Also, though there are different canonical lists for Christian groups, and in that sense different Christian Bibles, concerning the richer meaning there is a different sort of line of division and similarity. Just some thoughts.Lostcaesar 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. "The Bible" as a concept is potentially huge. For such a prevelantly discussed topic there deserves to be a rich and proffessionaly written article. --Home Computer 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Allright I'm very glad to see all the response this got. :) Stay with me for a second. The term Bible over 99% of the time refers to that Christian text that has sold more copies than any other book in existance. When one types in Bible on Wiki this article pops up and it appears confusing. The Christian Bible consists of the Old testament (for which we have decided to use the term "Hebrew Bible" and the New Testament for which we have the term "Christian Bible" so now we are opperating with two separate definitions of "Christian Bible" and furthermore "old testament" is a sub heading of the "Christian Bible" section. These are key issues that I feel needs to be resolved to make this article less confusing and more usefull. --Home Computer 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in the approach of this article. This article is not devided into Old/New Testament section using the strange terms "Hebrew Bible" for the fomer and "Christian Bible" for the latter. Instead, the article is broken into POVs. The first main section deals with the Jewish POV. The second main section deals with the Christian POV. As Lostcaesar so keenly points out, there is a little redundency in that the same basic books get covered twice due to the "Old testament" vs "TNK" issue. So the reason why Old Testament (and New Testament) are subheadings to the Christian Bible section is because they are both included in the Christian Bible (just as Torah, Nevi'i, and Ketuvim get subheadings for the Hebrew Bible section). Maybe there needs to be restructuring, editing, condensing, what have you. But I stand firm in my belief that including the Jewish POV in this article is not only important, but necessary to be inclusive per NPOV policy. Why is it confusing that you get this page when you type in "bible"? Maybe spelling out your concern can help us make this page better. Do we need to make it even more clear that the word "bible" is used by both English speaking Christians and English speaking Jews?--Andrew c 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. restructuring, not deletion. I think the old testament section in the Christian Bible needs to be completely reworked, but then what would it be but basically a copy of earlier stated material. This somehow should be reconcilled. And I'm not sure where you get this from but Jews, especially in my family.. do NOT use the word Bible to describe the torah or anything else.. so a Jewish POV on the phrase "the Bible" is not accurate here. --Home Computer 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT merge DIFFERENT terms that express different concepts

Question for User:Andrew c are you seriously proposing that the factual and true source for the Bible as a whole, which happens to be the Jews and Judaism, and their teachings about the Bible which are the foundations of the Bible (both as "Old Testament" or "New Testament" or as simply the originators of the "Hebrew Bible") should be cut out of this article? So what kind of Bible is this? A Christian Bible? Guess what...big problem...the Christians did not "invent" the Bible, the Jews did! Indeed without what the Jews taught in their Tanakh, the very notion of a "Messiah" makes no sense and has no context, because guess what, Christians did not "invent" the concept of a Messiah, the Jews did! Thus if the fact and truth is too much for anyone to handle, that the Jews are the originators of both the original Bible and of the notion of Messiah, then one should go back and brush up on the basics of the facts about both the origin of Christianity and what Judaism contributed to it. Wikipedia is not designed to convey the "pure theological view" of any one group, rather, as an encyclopedia it conveys the facts. And the facts are that (a) First there was a Torah and a Tanakh held and taught by Judaism for Jews only, and that is most certainly referred to as The Bible by Jews and by Judaism (since all the word "Bible" means is "book" a very innocuous word, if ever there was one.) Then (b) along came the early Christians and built a story about a Jewish person called Jesus who was convinced that he was the Jewish Messiah and followers that came after him postulated that he qualified based on passages in the Hebrew Bible (they did not bring proofs from any other sources - because there were none, it was all a Jewish in-house affair), then the followers of Jesus decided that the world needed a "New Testament" so they wrote it, and the only way a "New Testament" makes any sense in the first place is if there must be a reliable entrenched "Old Testament" in place already that was always accepted as true and withstood the test of time. So let's resist revisionism to pretend that Christianity and the New Testament had an "immaculate conception" and came out of thin air when in fact and in truth both Christianity and its later texts came directly out Judaism and the "Old Testament" - and the catch is that Jews do NOT call it or regard it as an "Old Testament," God forbid, but as an ongoing living Torah and Tanakh - so no-one will ever be able to escape or disregard those facts. So to now write a contrived article that will contain only the Christian POV will not do any justice to either Christianity or to the truth. Finally, this article has always tried to respectfully clarify the terminology used by both Christianity or Judaism in their own contexts, and in turn the rest of the article was built around that. It was a good solution and has worked well to introduce readers into the totality of this subject and not just to vainly hoped for Christian version. IZAK 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing for what you are saying. A Christian POV argument would be completely wrong here and no one is pushing for that. We need to come to a consensus on what the world means when the Bible is used and right an NPOV article on that.. the current version is looking great in my opinion. No POV sections, one section dealing with the books of the TNK and the Old testament. Another section dealing with the New Testament. It looks good. The old information is not disapearing. --Home Computer 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Tag?

Why is the Christian tag placed on the section speaking only of the New Testament as if the "Christian Bible" was just the New testament. This is another confusing presentational issue I plan on correcting..

• Hello? Who's speaking please? Kindly sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that (a) you can gain credibility, and (b) people can get some sense of who saying what to whom. Thanks. IZAK 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Current layout

ok, As AndrewC noted earlier, the current layout is presented in terms of POV's here's the current format:

BIBLE

Basic Intro

Jewish POV

Christian POV

Cannonization and text Transalation and other textual info

Arguments po and con

refferences

---

edit: Here is the proposed change in place

Bible basic Intro

Hebrew Bible (identified correctly as used by Chrisitans and Jews) TNK Old test

New testament etc etc

and so on..

Now my question is, was this a deliberate design or is this just how it fell into place? I would argue that this layout is not effective in presenting the info most sought in a clear way. I totally agree that all notable sides of an argument need to be presented but I do not think that dividing into Jew vs Christian presentation is the best way to introduce the Bible especially when "The Bible" (title of the article) is not a phrase Jews describe Jewish sacred text with. The phrase Jewish Bible is actually from the POV of gentiles. otherwise you wouldn't call it the "Jewish Bible".

I'm not sure how to fix this. I do not believe that organization by Religious POV on the phrase "The Bible" is helpful.. it's also a misnomer as the Christian POV seems to encompass everything in the "Hebrew Bible" section. I think almost all of the info currently in the article is good but misplaced.

I think we need to come up with new ways of categorising this info, but I think that most of the info is good. --Home Computer 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer continues to push an odd point of view. first, the current organization of the article is not according to points of view. It presents the Hebrew Bible first, then the Christian Bible. This is logical as the Hebrew Bible was compiled before the Christian one. Second, neither the article nor anyone else on this talk page suggests that the Hebrew Bible=the Old Testament. In fact they are not at all the same and it is wrong to suggest they are. Finally, in English Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible." Home Computer's claim to the contrary is simply wrong and in this context I wonder if he is trolling. Jews will call the Bible "the Hebrew Bible" when talking to Christians. And yes, when talkin in Hebrew they will call it the Tanakh. Sometimes when talking iin English they call it the Tanakh too. But I have countless books by Jews, and have had countless conversations in temples and synagogues, in yeshivas and in seminaries, where Jews would refer to "the Bible" when talking about the sacred books that predate the Mishnah, whether Genesis (yes, Jews use this word too!!) or Ecclesiases. And when they say "Bible" they are not including the Christian canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you're wrong. The terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Jewish Bible" are never used by Jewish people to descirbe Jewish Holy Books. "Bible" refers to the Christian works. Your perspective is not a Jewish one and arguable shouldn't be used to synthesize the Jewish POV section. Secondly, the information that goes into the TNK section and the Old testament section are going to be identical with the exception of a few sentances for things that happened after Zecharaiah. Because the Old Testament section needs to be updated and since it would contain the exact same info as the "Hebrew Bilbe" section I suggest a Christian vs Jewish format is not fluid, clear nor productive in this article. --Home Computer 16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also here's the crazy part, this article allready identifies "The Bible" as being a Christian related term in the second section.. so now you're disagreeing with terms allready agreed upon. Look, I'm not trying to mess everything up. This is an important article in my POV because of "The Bible"'s prevelance in discussions in liturature, media, etc..--Home Computer 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Bible" and related terms ("biblical") are commonly used among English-speaking Jews for the Jewish Bible specifically. No other term (not even "Tanakh") is as prevalent. Vigorous denials of this will not change the fact, and I suggest that Home Computer drop his strange claim to the contrary; just because he himself is personally unfamiliar with the fact (or uncomfortable with it) doesn't make it any less true.

"I suggest a Christian vs Jewish format is not fluid, clear nor productive in this article..." On the contrary, such a format (for at least part of the article) is demanded by historical reality: The are indeed two basic canons contending for the title of "Bible" in the dual Judeo-Christian tradition, and no amount of wishful thinking can change this blatant fact.

Personally, I have just observed this article in the past but never much touched it. This is partly because I think that the basic organization as it stands is actually more or less what is called for. That it entails a certain amount of redundancy is also not so troubling, since these are indeed overlapping, but not identical, concepts. Though they overlap they are each extremely important in their own right, so the nature of the redundancy is dictated by the nature of the material.

In any event, I suggest waiting to continue this conversation until Sunday evening, when the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah ends in the diaspora (here in Israel where I live it already ended tonight). Computers are not used on Simchat Torah :) Dovi 16:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. To clarify, You'd support the complete redunancy of a several page duplication from one POV section to the other POV section as opposed to a unified approach with differences noted? Also, Maybe my cousins just don't use the word "bible" around us goyim to avoid confusion. ;)

Also, when one types "the Bible" into google, what percent refers to the Jewish Bilbe and is that relevant to the discussion? peace. --Home Computer 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: OK check out the current intro to the "Hebrew Bible" section. It contains pretty much all the info to qualify it self as both a section on the TNK and the Old testament. The intro to that section is worded pretty well. I'm thinking there does not need to be an additional Old Testament section later on with the current wording in the Hebrew Bible section.. --Home Computer 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I've made minor arrangements what do you think about them? The Hebrew section contains all the relevant for both religious POVS. Seriously.. duplicating that would kill the article. That's all the change I'm pushing for. --Home Computer 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as Home Computer insists that "The terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Jewish Bible" are never used by Jewish people to descirbe Jewish Holy Books. "Bible" refers to the Christian works," I see no hope for productive collaboration. He is pushing his own point of view while denying that of most English-sepaking Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1st, I don't insist that read above conversation with Dovi. 2nd, It's not my POV I was pushing if this article is a list of conflicing POVs I was maintaining that the one held by more should be presented prominently, however I also argue this should not be a POV listing. It should be one article from an Npov stance.. 3rd, don't be so dramatic. :) We've only been discussing for a few days.. there's always hope for a peaceful concensus. --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not understand the difficulty. We have established that the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament are different entities. We have established that the concept “Bible” described here is a Judeo-Christian idea. Since the two are thus both related and different, we have established two sections to describe them both, with the earlier text chronologically (and, in the Christian canon, structurally) having been placed first. I don’t see where we can really go from here, or what is wrong with this basic framework. There are many contributions that need to be made to the article and many areas of improvement to concentrate on besides this matter. It seems settled to me. Lostcaesar 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost Cesar, here was the whole difficulty.. the old testament section needed both revision and increased visibillity in the article. A full revision of the section would yield nearly 6 pages of identical information, a duplication of earlier writing onthe Hebrew Bible. Furhtermore, looking more into the definition of Hebrew Bible we find that it is an academic term used to describe BOTH the Jewish TNK and the Christian OT. So what's the logical conslusion of that? That the initial section be revised to include both the TNK and the OT. Now all of the problems are solved. POV sections are GONE, True chonologial listing makes sense, no duplications, more fluid, more clear. And this is moot but technically speaking, Chronologically (technically speaking) the OT and the "Jewish Bible" were written at the same time. Peace. :) --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could use revision in certain ways and places, but I think energy would be better spend elsewhere. Perhaps you could mention specifics. As for HB vs OT, they are not the same, and if an academic uses them as such then the acedemic is in error, simple as that. Probably an error flowing from obcession with being pc, but if pc = error then it must be sidestepped. Lostcaesar 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi LC, thanks for responding again. I think all the issues have been resolved in the current edition of the article. You may be right on why the scholarly position to use the Hebrew Bible term as a neutral term for both the TNK and the OT bay be PC. Non-the-less, One section referring to all the books from Genesis to Zechariah (or Gen to Mal depending upon how you order them) should suffice perfectly because the books are in fact identical. The only difference is in what order the books are arranged. That order shouldn't justify a complete duplication of all the material (one copy for each POV) but rather, concise notations as to the difference (only one nPOV copy). Peace & thanks again for discussing. --Home Computer 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have little difficulty with what you say, Lostcaser. I would say not that "Bible" is a Judeo-Christian idea" but an English word (derived from Greek) used by both Jews and Christians although to refer to different things. If this is just a wordy version of what you mean, well, I guess it is just semantics and we agree. I just want to be clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking Bible (or any european translation of the Greek word Bibia, has since the Bible's (Christian) inception been used to describe the Bible. Fast forward several Hundred years and in pop Jewsish culture it has also been adopted to refer to thier Holy Text as well as exhastively inclusive technical manuals. (the handyman's Bible, etc). It's by no means the main word used or a scholarly (in my understanding) usage. Again, I may be wrong. And lots of times I am. Live and learn yes? :) peace. --Home Computer 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first google hit I get for "Hebrew Bible" is a Jewish source: [1] So is the very first hit I get for "Jewish Bible" [2]. Here's a useful Jewish site that just refers to it as "The Bible" [3] Here's another: [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wrong for sure on the common American Jewish usage of the word. --Home Computer 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, "Bible" is the term used by both Jews and Christians for their Bibles, and is the term used for both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Both Random House and American Heritage dictionaries give both usages as the meaning of the word "Bible". Please don't shunt this usage off into an "other" section again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert the hitsorical information that's been added. No one has been "shunted" all the information is still there in the first section. Many people use the word Bible and it's all in there. Please don't use the word shunt. It hurts my feelings. :O) --Home Computer 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bi‧ble  /ˈbaɪbəl/ –noun
1.the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
2.Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
3.(often lowercase) the sacred writings of any religion.
4.(lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem. sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary
Bi·ble (bbl) n.
1.

• 1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New *Testament.
• 2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
• 3. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
• 4. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.

2. often bible A book considered authoritative in its field: the bible of French cooking.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin biblia, from Greek, pl. of biblion, book diminutive of biblos, papyrus, book, from Bublos Byblos.] --Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these defs. (whoe ever did forgot to sign) I think the best part of those definitions is that they say exactly what the article says before you revert it. 1. Sacred books of Christianity 2. Also Jewish texts 3. Also other writing including technical stuff. That's what the article says, so why are you reverting to remove all of that? --Home Computer 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the common uses are both the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Other uses are unusual, and you've violated NPOV by misrepresenting that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Canon Dispute

LostCesar and anon person, I put up a tag and this discussion section because I can see the valid points you were making but thought it would be more appropriate to have the discussion here where anyone else coud chime in. ;) My two cents is that the info is pertient buyt just needs to be appropriately wikified. Peace. --Home Computer 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DOH! I keep forgetting to login. I'm not actually anon. I don't pretend to be the most up on the latest Wiki styles and formatting of what should go where. Sorry. I don't mind someone moving the content into a different area, as long as the facts are kept straight.  :) Shalom. --Solascriptura 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:) It looks like good info, also I agree with where you've placed it. I'm not sure what LoastCesar meant. The only suggestion I have is to make sure all info is presented in a "this is what's taught" manner as opposed to "this is the truth" manner but it looks like you did that pretty well too. Peace. --Home Computer 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that this is not the main article. That much detail belongs in the article on the Biblical canon. This is just a summary here. It is not about the Biblical canon, only the Bible. I am not trying to undo good faith changes (though I think this needs to be sourced), but they should be in the correct place. Please move this information into the main artile. Lostcaesar 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, i see your point. I agree that there is allot of info in that section that may be placed more appropriately in the article on Biblical Canon and concisely refferenced here only briefly. I've removed the tag and leave it up to you two to figure out how to copy all the info over and slim it all down for this one.. :) Peace. --Home Computer 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rv'd the section again. The old text, which is unsourced, is saved in the history of pages, so the contributor can chase down sources and add the material to the main article in due time. The summary here will remain, and can be changed or updated as the main article develops. Lostcaesar 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC) p.s., I mean no ill will or anything, these are good faith edits and informative, but out of place and needing more references. (Lostcaesar 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

The inserted information was incorrect, as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

controversial template

Added {{controversial}} due to discussions veering off. IZAK 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)