Portal talk:Bible

Article • Chapter • Discussion

Intro

This intro keeps getting longer and longer. All that is really needed is a few brief statements and a link to the article. Donnie Love 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the Old Testament story of Noah and the Deluge would benefit no one. Regardless whether one believes this event actually happened is not important. It is literature. Even some fiction today carry important messages. Noah and the Great Deluge is no exception; it does not exclude the fact that a flood actually occured. The sixty-six books of the Bible, a library consisting of history, poems, songs, advice on marriage, law, and prophesy, were written over many centuries by many authors. The first five books must be read for the message they attempt to convey, indeed metaphorical, symbolic, woven into the fabric of true events perhaps, as in all literature. {(Tom Koller)(Bible/Noah article)}13:01, 11 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.31.146 (talk)

You've posted this under an "Intro" heading, but the contents of the upper box, from Portal:Bible/Intro, do not mention Noah. What proposed removal are you commenting on? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Allowed

Would I be allowed to post quotes that most people would reject? Sgeo^(talk) 22:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean, would cause people to possibly doubt the truth of the Bible. Sgeo^(talk) 22:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know. I`m a believer, so naturally to me it sounds like a terrible idea. Donnie Love 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

@ Sgeo - If you do not believe it with all your self, as well as you are a part of people who live with each other daily(outside of reasons of bloodline, work, or reasons of rebellion(in there many facits). Then you are being completely honest, with all the fire that has been given you, and you can see around you. Then you can, if it's true. Now as a bible believer, I can say there are lies in scripture, but scripture is plain about those(because they are usually quoted by people(first eve on what God said), or have a different tone which is sometimes difficult to notice(proverbs has one of these "treat a fool" (do/don't)answer him according to his folly). So the test for putting something up isn't necessarily by rules of wikipedia or people of wikipedia in it's primary sense(secondary is tender to the structure) primary is seek how things are and when found, know them well and obey(though obeying is subserviant, not all subserviant situations are bad, consider what the bible talks about when it means bond-servant). If you wish, share the link that has the subject matter that you speak of and we can share it's points into a finer discussion. Poop may stink, but makes a great fertilizer. Facevalue, bible may be wrong(but this is by your face reading), but wait or think and read well enough, man it's explosive for the real God to move in his real creation(you included). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylium (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}

You can now add the selected Bible chapter to your user page using {{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Enjoy! BigDT 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on

...the the word Christian only appears three times in the whole bible, and that it may have been first used as a derogatory term? Says who..I find it offensive...did someone magically come up with this or something? Fethroesforia 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this. What exactly do you find offensive about this? The fact that Christian is only in the bible three times? Look it up yourself-it's true. So I guess you meant that it may have been first used as a derogatory term. This is one possible origin for the word "Christian" (see [1], [2], and many other websites, and I know I have found it in a book or two...here is one: The Student Bible Dictionary, c2000, ISBN 1577489853, page 60). I have heard it preached and seen it written, so I believe it is probably true. If you want some evidence, I don't really have time to search for it, so good luck! Rob 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires content to be reliable and verifiable. The two web sources from "some guy's website" and a listserv list are not. The Student Bible Dictionary is, though [3]. Still, though, there are three other concerns with having that line here. (1) Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. What historians believe that the term was originally derogatory? We don't want to give undue weight to a novel theory that is not widely accepted. (2) Portal content is for the purpose of sending readers to an article and "did you know" facts should come from an article - not be something found only in a portal. (3) This is the Bible portal, not the Christianity portal. Acts 11:26 says, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." It gives no context or indication as to whether this term was positive or negative. As this is a portal dealing with the Bible, not Christianity, nor the whole of ancient history, it is inappropriate here, in my view. --BigDT 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The word Christian does not apear in the bible once if desire to be technical. The problem is that the word Christian as we know it has been translated into English. Therefore it may appear 5 times in one translation and not apear at all in another translation. This section of the article is accrate but not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailengillespie (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed…

Bonjour,

There is a wrong external link (see this, written « http://www.uni-münster.de/NTTextforschung/KgLSGII08_02_27.pdf » ; it must be corrected as « http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/KgLSGII08_02_27.pdf » ; 39 hand corrections are too much for me. Can somebody ask a literate bot to do it ?… Thanxiz.

Budelberger (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ().

Portal selections

I have proposed that all portals related to Christianity be placed on autorotation, to make maintenance easier. One thing which would probably have to be done to do that would be to have an idea as to what articles are good enough and available, the latter point relating as well to hoping to not use the same articles all the other Christianity related portals use. To help give us an idea as to what all is out there, I have started a list at User:John Carter/Christianity portals of the articles of the best quality rating that are relevant to the various portals. Any parties wishing to help or discuss are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Children's Bibles

In Germany, there are - since the Middle Ages - Children's Bibles (i.e. books that contain some excerpts from the Bible in easy language and with many illustrations) by many authors, illustrators and publishers. This is described in de:Kinderbibel. In the English Wikipedia I just find The Children's Bible Story Book. Is there really only this one? --84.184.26.69 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Historicity

Can we have an open discussion about historicity notes on Bible-related pages? I am surprised and to be honest taken back by the fact that persons, whose only qualification is to be bible scholars and theologians are used as sources providing historicity to any given fact. These people are by definition believers and members of the religious community and that in turn makes their opinion clearly biased. I would suggest that at the very least, we should strive to only name sources from the historian community in the historicity sections of these pages, and even then only if they can provide more than opinion. For instance, on the page about the Burial of Jesus, three theologians are quoted in the historicity section. Two are quoted merely stating that the burial is part of the Gospels and the third that the accounts "create no impression of being a legend". How is either of these statements any indication, much less proof, of historicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krautkontrol (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Krautkontrol: In theory, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the portal, Portal:Bible. Your proposed discussion would work better on a Wikiproject talk page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata

I need help on how to classify in Wikidata:

• the biblical human characters
• and the nuances of characters: for example, martyr, virgin, widow, accompanying religious figures.

I have done some, but I am not very convinced. I see a great variety of cases. Nothing homogeneous. --&beer&love (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a standard around whether verse numbers should be included within bible quotes?

It seems to me that verse numbers shouldn't normally be included in quotes since they're not actually part of the text, and the verse range is already given as a reference. Obviously there are exceptions such as when the rest of the article is referencing particular verses within the quote. Is there a standard or common pattern around this? ··gracefool 💬 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Does each chapter of the New Testament have its own wikipedia article?

What about the Old Testament? Does every chapter from it have its own wiki page? LaceyUF (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think so. I have come across some of them in the past. Why do you ask? LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)