Talk:Bible

Dating

The use of CE and BCE is objectionable, especially in the context of writing about the Bible. It makes no sense at all especially when CE and BCE are counted from the same point as AD and BC: the (formerly accepted) date of the birth of Christ. It seems to be the height of wokery.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Diverse religious communities have compiled religious texts into various official collections. The earliest known collection consisted of the initial five books of the Bible. This information highlights the historical significance of religious texts as a means of preserving cultural and spiritual beliefs for future generations. Yumyam (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello hru 2603:6011:7DF0:24E0:35DB:40F1:C48D:AE42 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic

“The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period.” Plain wrong. Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic. Earlier cuneiform writings, esp from Sumeria and Ugarit, were incorporated, but the Bible is a much later work (c. 1100 BCE) arising around the time of the development of the first alphabet of proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. Philip.e.kahn (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll pass on paleo-Hebrew, but I don't know any scholar worth his salt who dates the Bible to 1100 BCE. Or any book of it, whatsoever. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly WP:OFFTOPIC

It seems redundant to have both "Criticism" and "Biblical Criticism" sections. These has to be merged and streamlined as this isn't a critique-driven article. StarkReport (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism means opposition;

Biblical Criticism means an academic field, it does not mean opposing the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible are different things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh... That makes sense. In the meantime, I am thinking of repositioning the "Criticism" section after the "Literature and the Arts" section, as such sections are usually placed at the bottom of their parent sections. StarkReport (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (to clarify): Septuagint section

Para.3, "The apocrypha are": the penult. sentence, "In modern Judaism", is open to confusing misreading. (". . none of the apocryphal books are . . excluded from the canon" . . wait, what?)

May I recommend splitting the sentence? - "In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic. All are therefore excluded from the canon." 84.9.116.66 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), remember? that's why it says "In modern Judaism" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Er, yes. It looks as if the way I phrased my request added to the confusion?! (And maybe my suggestion, to split the sentence, would be overdoing it.)

Yes, LXX includes the apocrypha. Yes, "in modern Judaism none .. are accepted".

How about amending the sentence I'm unhappy with like this?:

In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic and they are therefore excluded from the canon. 2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (wrong word; + link): Final form section

Final para., "Copies of some", final sentence, "The Septuagint is": parenthetic phrase glossing the term "recension", "(revised addition of the text)", should be "(revised edition of the text)".

And I suggest the term being glossed, "recension", should be a link (to the existing article on that).

So I'm requesting for the sentence to read as follows (in Wikitext):

The Septuagint is now seen as a careful translation of a different Hebrew form or recension (revised edition of the text) of certain books, but debate on how best to characterize these varied texts is ongoing. 2A00:23C4:CE01:2601:1C86:1EFE:2CA4:102D (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Like... Who wrote it

Deep in the history, almost every religion was written by someone, one question, who wrote the Bible? -_- 176.98.71.70 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the authors of the Bible have remained anonymous. The mainstream academic view is that the four NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The Bible is a compilation, different bits are from different centuries. You might find Mosaic authorship interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

first line

should "to a certain degree" ... is held sacred etc etc be "to varying degrees". It is held sacred in Christianity and Judaism, inter alia. 2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Bible Sales Increase

Bible sales in the U.S. are up 30% in 2024 vs. 2023. One theologian suggests this is due to an aging Gen Z.

“They are now well into young adulthood – with the oldest past college age and youngest passing puberty. Rather than the internet-driven popular culture they have been drowning in, I wouldn’t be surprised if many are beginning to look for real-life answers now they are faced with social and career decisions,” Tommy Doughty said. “With loneliness and dislocation prevalent, especially in our socially-deprived youth, there is no wonder many would turn to renewed attempts at spiritual awakening.” [1]https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/

Anecdotal stories confirm people in their 20s and 30s are finding the Bible is connecting with them on a deeper level.

Cely Vazquez, a former reality show contestant and online influencer, documented her experience buying her first Bible at a Barnes and Noble on TikTok. Expressing her nervousness about the purchase, she said, "I have butterflies." In the video, Vazquez declared, "I have never purchased my own Bible or studied it or read it, and now, at 28 years old, I've been finding myself having this deeper craving for really understanding what it means to walk with God -- and I think that definitely starts with reading and studying the Bible," as The Washington Times reported. [2]https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788 Richronald (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised. I had a bowdlerized children's illustrated bible as a child, and I had access to hardcover translations of the Bible as a teenager. Most of my atheistic beliefs derive from many hours of bible study, and from comparisons with other mythological material. Being 28-years-old at one's introduction to the reading material seems way too old in my eyes. What reading material do American children typically use? Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Any response to that question would be an overgeneralization. In the immortal words of Cedric Neal: "You gotta start somewhere". I know many who came to Christianity in their 30s, 40s or later, after a lifetime of atheism or agnosticism. Incidentally, my Christian beliefs derive from many hours of comparing the Bible to other religions' holy texts, including at university, and Christianity to other religious (and atheistic) systems. So, to each their own. In short, I do not find this surprising. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Christian Canon

Which article explains specifically about the sacred books of the Christian religion? It might include older canons (such as Tanakh), and it might be included in newer canons. But there's supposed to be an article that's specific about Old Testament and New Testament at once. הראש (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)