Bible/Talk

< Bible

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

This is going to be great! Math, scripture and philosophy lend themselves so well to wikification! I suspect the main page is going to be a it longer than average. DMD


Wycliffe's Bible was not the first English translation. There was an earlier English translation dating to the ninth century CE, and associated with King Alfred the Great, who encouraged the translation and may even have done part of the work himself. A few books of this survive. It was probably once reasonably compete.

I'm glad you said that. I thought there was a translation prior to Wycliffe's.

Yes, this version does exist; however, most people consider the language Anglo-Saxon and not English.


Structurally, do we want to create a page for Genesis, Exodus, etc? or do we want to create sub-pages for these books for example in : Bible/Genesis, Bible/Exodus?


I just had a crazy idea: we need to put the whole text of the Bible on Wikipedia! Could use one of the versions with permissive copyrights like the NET and WEB bibles i put links to on this article. How would this be organised? the only way i can think of is to put each book under its title. other ideas?? Asa


Oh, please! Let's not! The only versions available not under copyright are 18th century and before! Even something as old as the Revised Standard is jealously protected, and it was first published in the 1880s (if I remember correctly - maybe the 1890s). I would HATE to have people linking to the KJV, which sonorous and majestic as it is is not easy to read for the average late or postmodern.


For information sake, the NET Bible is not in public domain and you'll have great difficulty getting permission to use it. I tried last year for another web-based project that I'm a part of and the answer was a strict 'no.' The WEB Bible, although in the public domain, is not yet complete in all of its editing and would therefore not be a wise choice either. Perhaps the best answer would be to wait until the International Standard Version is complete, a project which is designed to create a freely distributable modern translation. Check http://www.isv.org/ Otherwise, use KJV, you know that most people know it, are at least moderately confortable with it, and hey, its free. -- Jon Dixon


In the early days of Wikipedia, someone started importing the KJV here: ChristianBibleGenesis. I would recommend that we wait on importing any texts the size of an entire translation of the Bible. I imported Macbeth manually, and it took me quite a while, since I tried to do some useful formating. Alls_Well_That_Ends_Well--Text was imported in seconds, but it's not very useful as far as format goes. I'm hoping that, at some point in the future, the Wikipedia software will evolve so that we can make better use of primary sources such as the Bible, but for now, I don't think the effort is worth it. -- STG


I removed the following from the first paragraph. Islamic concepts of the corruption of Biblical text is a tendentious attack on the pre-existing religions. Though the *statement* about Islamic belief is true, it is not relevant to the introductory paragraph. Perhaps it can appear in a later context. Here it is:

Muslims believe that the original texts of the Jewish and Christian Bibles were revealed by God, but that the surviving versions have been corrupted. Muslims have their own sacred text, the Quran, which they believe to be free from the corruption they believe has affected the Jewish and Christian Bibles.

I put that statement there because the article originally said that the Bible is the foundation of all three monotheistic religions, and all three monothiestic religions accept at least some of the books. That applies well to Judaism & Christianity, but with Islam the relationship is more complex; so I added that text to try to more accurately reflect the Muslim attitude. -- SJK

well, someone ought to delete that statement from the aticle! Muhammad's relationship to any written text of the J-C scriptures was intensely problematic, and to call it 'foundational' is not at all correct.

I have deleted that claim now. Do you think we should discuss the Muslim attitude towards the Bible somewhere in the article in more detail, or does that belong somewhere else? Also, I don't like how the article treats the Bible as if there was one Bible with disagreement about the books it contains. The Jewish and Christian Bibles are really different things, not just a disagreement about what belongs in the one thing. Even though the Christian Bible may contain everything the Jewish does, the additions aren't as minor as the deuterocanon/apocrypha. -- SJK

I agree. It is a strange article, though better than it was. I think the Islamic view will or ought to end up as one of the headers under 'Interpretations.' --MichaelTinkler

I haven't been keeping a *close* eye on this page, but I see a need for both a History of the Bible (Canon formation, manuscript transmission, etc) and The Bible as History on archaeology. there's a cross-reference from the Book of Mormon mentioning the lack of archaeological 'confirmation' already. --MichaelTinkler


I put that bit on the book of Mormon page. I said "support" not "confirmation". Many of the cities and peoples the bible mentioned at least existed (how faithfully they were reported by the Bible writers is another matter). About the book of Mormon, most of his claims have not archeological support whatsoever, and the civilizations described would be better in the company of atlantis. --AN

whoops, sorry about the verb. I understand the difference you meant. --MichaelTinkler

Once again I'm changing LXX to Septuagint. I know it's easier to type the abbreviation, but unless one knows the legend of the 70, the fact that Septuaginta is the Latin word for 70, and that the Roman numeral is LXX, the abbreviation is obscure. Wikipedia does not have to worry about saving paper, so there is no inherent advantage to abbreviation other than for the typist. (oh, other than that, on a first read I like the additions) --MichaelTinkler.


I'm certainly not expert, but isn't the Apocrypha considered an intergral part of the bible by some sects? Calling it not canonical is rather a slap in the face for those who believe it is a part of the Bible. --corvus13


The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches include some books that Protestants do not; I thought that was covered fairly in the article. Is anyone aware of any specific sects that include additional books in their canon, beyond the ones include by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Has anyone published a Bible containing these books? If not, I don't think there's a problem. --Wesley