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)

edit request of Illustrations section

Following the recent major progress in AI, adding an AI section here is super important in my opinion. Consider adding the following:

The intersection of the Bible and artificial intelligence marks a transformative evolution in the way religious narratives are visualized and interpreted. Historically, artists meticulously crafted images to depict scenes from the Bible, offering a tangible and visual connection to the sacred text. Today, with the advent of artificial intelligence, a new chapter unfolds. AI technologies enable the creation of stunning visual representations by analyzing textual descriptions and generating intricate images that capture the essence of biblical stories. This fusion of ancient scriptures with cutting-edge AI techniques not only preserves the rich tradition of visual storytelling but also opens new avenues for exploring and understanding the timeless narratives contained within the Bible. The marriage of religious tradition and technological innovation in the visualization of the Bible through AI serves as a testament to the dynamic interplay between faith and the advancements of the digital age.

A great example for this is BiblePics.co project, where you can read the bible with AI generated images + talk to biblical characters with the help of AI Selihay (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Problems with the above text include WP:OR, WP:PUFFERY and, if the final sentence is supposed to be part of it, WP:PROMO.

Not that "AI and the Bible" or something similar isn't a topic with sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. It may very well have a place somewhere on WP. A new article, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw the website: the idea is nice, but the end result is poor quality, e.g. people before God created people. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder what AI-Moses says if you ask him if Jesus is the son of God. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Since it has the Gospel of Matthew, it is obviously a Christian website. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

Noted CE is instead of AD. To maintain consistency with the historical importance of BC/AD, AD should be utilised. Jpeters9 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Common Era is both more important and more neutral than Anno Domini. Jesus is not our dominus.Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed extensively - in archives 2, 8, 15, 16, and probably others. Consensus each time has been that BCE/CE is preferred since this article discusses both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Were it about the Christian Bible only, BC/AD might be appropriate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 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)

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)