Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

As an electronics systems design engineer, my own understanding of the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is as follows:

1. Light is just one part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and when light was created then so were all the other forms- radio waves, heat, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. [Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Spectrum]

2. Albert Einstein discovered that Energy and Matter are related by the square of the speed of light (E=Mc^2). [Wikipedia article on Mass Energy Equivalence] Thus, light had to be created before any matter or energy could be created.

Jkaness (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, but views vary. Much depends on how literally one takes the Bible passage. Most Christians are not as scientifically literal as in your comment, and tend to be content with an interpretation that God did indeed create the universe without giving literal details (including scientific ones) as to how He created it. That approach looks more for the spiritual meaning and implications of God's creative act than for understanding the physical mechanisms. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your comments. I took the liberty of adding this point of view in a new subsection "Physics" under "Interpretations". That title seemed to me to offer differing viewpoints as opinions rather than hard referenced facts. I accept whatever Wikipedia wishes to do with it. PS, I cannot find how to write a superscript number (as in E=mc2)!Jkaness (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Note that unless you have a reliable source expressing this view about the Genesis story and physics, it would unfortunately be original research (WP:OR) if included in an article without such a source. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I and using Chromium and the links using the bible verse finder only show a list of numbers, on the Merkabah mysticism article. For example, the link [1]

The same result happens if I go directly to the bibleversefinder tool and make a search, with source set to '!All sources'. However, selecting a single source works okay..

Are other people experiencing this problem?

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, User:Jenhawk777. I'd be happy to take a look and give you some thoughts, and I'll try to be polite. I'm sorry to hear there's been some vitriol. Discussions of the Bible on Wikipedia (or anywhere) have a way of getting that way. Alephb (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, the link to your sandbox doesn't seem to lead to your draft. Has it been moved? Alephb (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

On third thought, I don't see any evidence that you've been editing over at The Bible and violence at all. Are you editing under multiple usernames? I'm confused here. Alephb (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alephb: Hello! No it hasn't been moved and I won't submit it until I get other opinions. I apparently wrote the link incorrectly--should not have included the 'talk'. It's there in my sandbox. I have not edited any on the original article because I was attempting to Be Bold! and do the whole rewrite suggested in the flag at the top!! I kept everything from the original article within the rewrite--I just relabeled and rearranged and added to it. I would like to change the Title. The Bible and violence is ambiguous; it could refer to using the Bible to address violence and help create peace--which is not what the article is about. Violence in the Bible is more specific and limited in scope. I would like to know if you think the rewrite in my sandbox has a neutral pov, if you think content needs altering in any way--oh just anything you feel like saying! I am genuinely grateful for any and all comments. Thank you up front! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alephb, the draft is at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox. Jenhawk has mostly been editing (in article-space) Christianity and violence, but you can see her at the The Bible and violence talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What would I do without you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

When it comes to extremely minor things like typos, do you mind I go change the problem directly in your sandbox rather than talking about them first? Alephb (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jenhawk777: I so far boldy made some improvements, but I acknowledge that this is a user space sandbox, and unlike mainspace or draft space, users can request that editors don't edit their personal sandboxes. I assume that you welcomed these edits starting this thread, but if not, feel free to say so. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do welcome them! I do--this will be a true Wiki project before it evens gets sent up for approval! I am so relieved and grateful I could just about cry! I can't say thank you enough.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The truth is, I am not only genuinely grateful for what all of you have done to help me--genuinely help me--I am a little in awe of your knowledge and skills! This has been the best part of the whole Wiki experience as far as I'm concerned. You guys have really made a difference for me and I think if the article gets accepted, it will be your doing! A group effort--as it should be here--right? So edit away--do what you think is good--the only thing I have disagreed about so far was removing the section headings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Bible

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Over at the Tribe of Issachar, there is a disagreement about the correct way to deal with disagreements between academia and religious authorities. In the interests of not getting myself into an edit war, I thought I would see if any project members would like to take a look and see what they think. Alephb (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Textual differences in the Bible. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

If anyone wants to look in at Rephaite and evaluate what's going on there it might be useful. We've got one of those What is Wikipedia even for sorts of discussions starting. Alephb (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

We now have similar issues at Ishmael. Having uninvolved editors who are familiar the area of biblical scholarship look in might be helpful. Alephb (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I hope you understand that normally any request from you would take priority from me, and I did say I would have your back, and I did mean it, but the idea of getting involved in another controversy makes me queezy. This is my field of study but I just can't. Please forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Jenhawk777, I wouldn't think of asking you to. When I ask for other people to look into a conflict, it's best for me if they're not people I've had a lot of past interaction with. Otherwise it could take on the appearance of using personal connections to "win" conflicts. As it all shook out, the issue went to WP:ANI and resulted in a block by an administrator I'd never heard of, so it's no longer an active concern. Because of the role that consensus plays in settling Wiki-disputes, there's always the possibility that a group of editors would "have each other's back" and turn editing into a team sport, where a group of friends goes around beating up on other editors.

The best route for handling conflicts is trying to find uninvolved editors, which is why I would post to a third-party board like that rather than turning to my Wiki-buddies. I'm trying to avoid even the appearance of WP:CANVASSING. So there's nothing to forgive. I wouldn't want you running around to disagreements I'm involved in and taking my side. I'd be concerned if you did. It would make us look suspicious to the community. Alephb (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Canvassing! I can see how that would be bad the way they describe it! I get it. It actually makes me feel better about Wiki. There can be team sports as long as we are working together well on a common project, but when conflict arises, everyone has to take a step back in pursuit of the neutral consensus. We don't get neutrality from our friends--and we shouldn't--because of course I would run around taking your side! Always! And think it was right to do! But I can completely see it now--no canvassing! Okay then. One more unique characteristic of Wiki-world! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's possible that I personally am taking an overly strict approach to this no-canvassing thing. I think people probably draw these lines in different places. But I try to take a strict approach with myself. At the risk of blaspheming, we could compare to the proverbial fence around the Torah. If I can't convince uninvolved people who don't know me that they should take my side, I would hopefully take that as a sign that I'm either wrong or pursuing something too trivial to really be worth the time. Besides, I'm already tempted to argue more than is good for me. Knowing that I had someone who felt obliged to back me up would be altogether too much temptation. Alephb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

When it comes to canvassing, it's another example of an odd Wiki tendency: Often, the Wiki way is to simply take what an ordinary human being would do, and then avoid doing that. And, whenever I ramble about my high ideals, you should always take this as, This is how Alephb wishes he acted consistently, but probably is only how he operates on a good day.Alephb (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anyone think maybe the time has come to start archiving this page? John Carter (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it might be about time. I wonder if there's a way to set it so that it leaves maybe six months worth of stuff or a year. Alephb (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There were 4 archive pages already, but I've set up a bot to do the work from now on, leaving six months as suggested. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Our article Moses includes a footnote that gives various ancient Semitic languages used variously by Jews and Christians starting with Hebrew, followed by Arabic, then Greek. I would have just moved the Greek before the Arabic myself but thought this might have come up before or I might be missing something.

Is the Arabic only there because of Islam? I know there are (and have been forever) Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, but the same is true of Spanish, and the only difference I can think of is Arabic's being the language of the Quran. But since Greek was the language of both the Christian New Testament and various (most?) Jewish Second Temple texts, and was also the primary language of the Jewish diaspora for a long time (unlike Arabic, which I'm pretty sure only gained widespread use after a fair few Jews had spread throughout Europe and would have been much more likely to speak Latin or a European vernacular than Arabic), it feels to me like it has more "interfaith" relevance than Arabic.

Am I missing something?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd nitpick a bit about how many Jews ever spoke Greek, but I think you're basically right. I don't think you'll get any serious opposition if you move those around. I don't think the current order reflects any kind of deep thought or consensus -- notice how Syriac is currently ranked ahead of both Arabic and Greek. My impression across biblical articles in general is that transliterations are added in a pretty haphazard way. Sometimes they pile up into enormous piles that make the first sentence of an article all but unreadable. At least they're in a footnote in this case. Alephb (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article has been subject to recent edit warring. Additional eyes are welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I've tossed in my two cents -- not an overall solution, but a thought on one aspect of the problem, over at the talk page. Alephb (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if every single one of the titles listed at Lost work#Lost texts referenced in the Old Testament needs its own Wikipedia entry. Yes, Bible scholars have poured over every word of the Bible for centuries, so they have been name-dropped in thousands of sources, but that seems to be all she wrote (and all we can write) for most of them. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of well written articles here. However, the author's should indicate who's bible they are using. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that when I'm looking for information, such as genres of the books of the bible and I see that not all books are listed, I'm concerned. I understand that Martin Luther did not like (and removed) the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel; but they are part of biblical history. (https://catholicexchange.com/catholic-and-protestant-bibles-what-is-the-difference).

Point being, when citing a biblical reference, tell the reader if you are using a Catholic Bible or a non-Catholic Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.183.4 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, that's the difference between the pre-Reformation Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible and is less about Luther "not liking" certain books than them simply not being part of the Hebrew canon because they weren't in Hebrew. It's not simply "Catholic vs. Protestant"; there's also a Jewish bible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Attempting to indicate that there are only Catholic and Protestant Bibles seems to ignore that the Eastern Orthodox and multiple Oriental Orthodox churches have even more books than the Catholics and Protestants have, as per our article on the Biblical canon. Also, although I don't know this absolutely, I have reason to believe that at least some groups some might call "Protestant" include specific books not in the so-called Protestant Bible, making the use of at least that term more questionable. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are there any specific articles where the ambiguity has you worried, 192.108.183.4? Alephb (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can see how it might be possible, probably even likely, that differing texts can lead to differing interpretations in some matters. One of Jack Myles' books I think indicated how the order of OT books leads to differing views' of when God became less active in human affairs. I know of at least two good reference works, broadly encyclopedic, about major Biblical interpreters and female Biblical interpreters. The texts of those works might be useful. When I finish what I'm doing now, I might try to add lists of their articles and references to project pages here. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply