Bible Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

2004 – August 2005 Old project pages Old discussions at overhaul 2009–13 2014–15 2016–February 2017 March 2017 to six months ago

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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?

The article Gospel could do with a little help. It currently contains some contentious claims that are stated as fact, and any attempt to change them being opposed. Some extra eyes would be welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list here what these claims are?Achar Sva (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the main problems are that the "content' section describes virtually nothing about the content of the Gospels, but instead focusses almost entirely on the discrepancies between the gospels. I believe both should be there. It also completely lacks any description of the significance of the Gospels to Christianity. A person could read this article and come away with absolutely no idea of what is in the Gospels, or why they are important to Christians. We should absolutely explain why the texts are important to Christians in an NPOV way. (There is also one person seriously arguing that all talk of the significance of the Gospels in Christian doctrine be disallowed.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear: your concern is (a) to see more detail on the content of the gospels, and (b) something on their significance to Christians (or do you mean Christian doctrine -the first is contemporary and popular in focus, the second historical and theological)? Achar Sva (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in many Biblical articles, there is an inconsistency in citing Bible references - sometimes linking to Wikisource and sometimes to the Bible Gateway website. Is there a preference for one or the other? Each source seems equally reliable. Skelta (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care. Just many more Americans are simply more familiar with the KJV when using the Bible. No other book has had quite an influence in the history of the world. So much so, that nearly every day one unintentionally references the KJV in normal conversation. Edding24 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edding24, Wikipedia's audience is larger than the United States. And Catholics - 20.8% of the US - are more familiar with translations like the NABRE and RSV-2CE. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Edding24 (talk · contribs). Their rationale seems to be "I have edited the translation, not only because the King James Bible is more accurately translated and more beautifully written, but because Americans and English culture is simply more familiar and more accustomed to the style of the great King James Bible." - seems a bit like the KJ only movement. Is this ok? We can just go through and change to our favorite version? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for picking any translation in a Wikipedia article?Edding24 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on the editor and the article. AFAIK there is no guideline or essay that speaks about Bible-translations. My approach would generally be in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, meaning basically if you create the article (or is the one who starts adding Bible-texts) you can pick, possibly there's an argument that on a catholic topic it's reasonable to use a translation Catholics like if such exist, and in existing article's the current translation should in general be left alone since bickering about it takes time and annoys people (MOS:RETAIN), though it's probably a good idea to have consistency within the same article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Aaron ^[1] goes to the Ukrainian Bible ^[2] to the Maori. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Links formatting errors fixed to Numbers 6:22–27 and Leviticus 9:23–24, respectively. JohnThorne (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Thorne: thanks, but were they simply careless errors or vandalism? Doug Weller talk 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

: @Doug Weller: From the monitoring so far, it seems to be a careless error. The user thought to use "|" to separate the first and last verses, not knowing that the number after the separator actually points to "different Bible versions or translations". The numbers themselves are accurately meant for the last verse in the citation. JohnThorne (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnThorne: that makes sense, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some form of consensus on how Psalms with different numberings due to variants between the Vulgate/Hebrew numbering schemes should be given in article text? It seems excessive to refer to Psalm 112 (111) each and every time it appears in the text. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: The Psalm numbering in the article is now standardized and a note is added in the leading section to explain the numbering convention. JohnThorne (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]