Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(error in article: reply)
(error in article: On the numbers, and unlocked.)
Line 187: Line 187:
: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population?  Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population?  Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems.  [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438).  And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
::  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:38, 14 March 2009

! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Archive 1

Archive 2

What the serpent said

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. Karajou 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

La or Ta

Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that la is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of "definite article" Greek, you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. Biblia is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ta - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. AKjeldsen 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ta biblia was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. Karajou 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature by Friedrich Blass et.al., or A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton et.al. AKjeldsen 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. Karajou 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. AKjeldsen 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. Karajou 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Here we go:
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.
Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.
Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.
Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. AKjeldsen 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. Karajou 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Article Name

This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. Epicon 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

New American Standard Bible

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[1] or the Lockman foundation?Discussion on this matter. Hannibal ad portas 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

This also makes for interesting perusal Fox 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (Standard and Catholic). Hannibal ad portas 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Request SysOp

Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the Complete Jewish Bible, which is the version used by the majority of Messianic Jews. Some brief blurbs can be seen here and here. Fox 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Concordia Self Study Bible

Please add Concordia Self Study Bible to version. FunnyBoy 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Changes Needed

The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:

  • Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
  • The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
  • Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
  • KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
  • KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
  • KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
  • KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
  • KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.

--All Fish Welcome 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the Christian Bible. We Jews, of course also use the term the Bible to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).
It's a matter of terminology. Christians say the Bible meaning OT + NT. Jews say the Bible and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see Sunday School) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --Ed Poor Talk 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. Canuck 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Best-selling book?

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. Andy 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)

No. Karajou 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Please remove categories

Please remove categories religion and Book of Worship, as they are supercategories of bible. Also, if you could change the format to [[Category:Bible|*]] so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. TheEvilSpartan 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)


As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? Barikada 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. Philip J. Rayment 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. Barikada 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. Philip J. Rayment 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? Barikada 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
With those annotations, yes. Philip J. Rayment 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? Barikada 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[2]:
  • "(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
  • "(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
  • "And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
  • "God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
  • "(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already light, and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said nothing accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
Philip J. Rayment 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? Barikada 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
2. Humans can. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. Barikada 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)

(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from claims of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research are not facts, but evolutionary arguments! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also begs the question!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it could be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it can be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument requires the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is your job to justify the claim. We are not talking about my terms, but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave two answers to this one. That is, two independent answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute one of the answers, this site indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than a few days without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively invented the story to discredit creationists! (Read the Flat Earth article for more.)

Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" Barikada 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)
1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I think I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use science outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, in principle, be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text doesn't disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a particular direction (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" (Genesis 1:2 . See here for a detailed study of the issue.
5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
Did you read Flat Earth? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
Philip J. Rayment 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Correction and authorship

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --Dale77 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)
2.1.4 Inspiration

Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dale77 (talk)

Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. Philip J. Rayment 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)


I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gobber (talk)

And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. Learn together 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Authorship of Job

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? Philip J. Rayment 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. Learn together 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask

I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--JeanJacques 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)

See here for the Old Testament and here for the New Testament. That second one also recommends this. Philip J. Rayment 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)


Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.

  • The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
  • Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
Philip J. Rayment 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal Book of Enoch (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).
There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like Book of Jasher in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; Book of Wars of the Lord in Nm 21:14. The Book of Jubilees is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. Sirach/Ecclesiasticus is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--Kencaesi 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)
I did say "much if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that referring to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, much of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

error in article

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --TedM 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. This site lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently in addition to the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)