Last modified on 14 October 2012, at 12:27

Talk:The Bible

Return to "The Bible" page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bible page.


About vs FromEdit

Shouldn't quotes about the titular work be in a separate page than those from it? Especially if they're both long enough to fill their own pages. User 13:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bible passages vs quotationsEdit

I feel that some of the entries cross the line from a Biblical quotation to an Bible passage that is less noteworthy as a quotation. Alan Liefting 09:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just as appropriate to delete, trim, or otherwise amend text as it is to add it. If you find something that doesn't seem particularly pithy, feel free to reduce or even remove it. If any quote or passage becomes a point of contention, the involved editors should bring up the issue on this talk page. If a reader doesn't feel comfortable removing or editing text, they're also welcome to ask specific questions about it on the talk page. As Wikipedia says, be bold! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

ErrorEdit

The Bible is not the a religious text of Judaism. The jewish Torah only uses the first five books of the Old Testament. The rest has nothing to do with Judaism.

Wrong. The Torah is indeed the first five books. However, the Jewish Bible or Tanach consists of the entire Old Testament as accepted by Protestants. (Roman Catholics accept additional books, broadly the same as the protestant Apocrypha.)--Cato 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

John 4 or 1 John 4?Edit

I believe the quote is actually from 1 John 4:18... 218.186.8.10 07:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Subdivide?Edit

This could be a huge article. Should it be divided into several articles? Some of the major books could easily be a whole article each.--Cato 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Eventually it might become a directory of separate books of the Bible, but for now simply a cleaner division into sections for the various books would be an improvement. I saw the need for this recently but had not had the time to get around to it. ~ Kalki 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not a separate article for each book, but we could certainly do separate Proverbs and Psalms articles. Koweja 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
How about
  1. separate OT and NT: keep the main article as collection of "about Bible".
  2. separate some OT books from the OT general (i.e. Psalms and Proverbs).--Aphaia 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of booksEdit

Should the order of books in the Old Testament follow the traditional Jewish ordering or the Christian one? At present, it does neither.--Cato 10:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things more difficult, not all Christian churches put them in the same order. See w:Books of the Bible. Koweja 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If we don't follow the Jewish ordering, I think we should use the King James version, which is followed by all Protestant Bibles.--Cato 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly for your proposal, Cato. Since KJV omits some documents of OT and Protestant is anyway not the majority of Christianity, while NPOV policy demands us to follow generally the way of the majority. I propose Eastern Orthodox way, while it is not the majority (even it is the second largest denomination), its way accords to the largest one's, Catholic order, only contains some books Catholic doesn't recognize, and not contradict largely with the Protestant way. --Aphaia 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Aphaia: I'm afraid I must disagree. The complete KJV includes the Apocrypha, and therefore includes all the books found in Roman Catholic Bibles, plus 3 and 4 Esdras that Catholic Bibles omit. No doubt most KJVs printed in modern times omit the Apocrypha, but some include it. In most English-speaking countries (and this is the English language Wikiquote), Protestantism is the dominant sect of Christianity. As for Eastern Orthodoxy, I have never seen one of their Bibles in English.--Cato 21:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Message"?Edit

What means "message" in section name? "Leviticus xx, KJV" (or NIV, RSV ...) makes a sense but I have no idea what means "message" here. --Aphaia 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language" is a paraphrase of the Bible by Eugene Peterson.--Cato 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The message of the Bible is one of the historical relationship with his chosen people {the Jews},secondly it is his message of salvation to those who choose to become his adopted children, it is a message for all humankind. It is a handbook for humanity with which one can learn all that necessary to be in a right relationship with God, through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. {RNDJR}

Let's settle on a translationEdit

Having several different translations is confusing and inconsistent. I suggest we use the King James since that's the one most influential on the English language; secondary choice would be the New Revised Standard Version, which is the most-used translation today by scholars. [Unsigned comment 23:52, 31 January 2008 by User:96.231.151.191]

The formatting of this page needs major cleanup, but I see no need to constrain quotes to any particular translation. I might actually attempt the division of this into a "contents" page for the separate books of the bible in the months ahead, but I have several other personal priorities. I might start on it within a few weeks. I would probably primarily use the KJV and RSV, but augment it with others also. ~ Kalki 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We really need separate articles on each Biblical book, or at least the longer ones. I started doing that but it's run into the sand alas. As to quotations, we put what is well-known and notable. This will usually be the KJV, but not always. It may include pre-KJV and Catholic versions for example.--Cato 08:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The KJV is an old translation - most churches and Christians use the NIV these days. In fact, many of the quotes from the NIV are now better known than quotes from the KJV. I would suggest that if a single translation was chosen, it was the NIV

Bible MisprintsEdit

Shouldn't there be a page of Bible misprints/misquotations? 92.20.175.148 09:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A good list for misquotations is here (remove spaces and end period): http:// suite101.com/ article/common-sayings-not-from-the-bible-a118379. Those five seem to be the "standard" misquotes, which I'll repeat here: "spare the rod, spoil the child", "cleanliness is next to godliness", "the lord helps those who help themselves", "money is the root of all evil", and "pride goeth before a fall".