Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
(adding Twain quote)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


:::I agree with Peter, FWIW. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with Peter, FWIW. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I've be-bolded. Also, I agree that 'books' ought to be a subpage, but not sure how to do that. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


== Definition ==
== Definition ==
Line 24: Line 26:


  [[Category:Rename suggested]]
  [[Category:Rename suggested]]
== wrong focus ==
This overview article should, as noted above, first contain a generic definition for any bible, as opposed the "The Bible" in Christian terms.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 20:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
:For instance, for many many years, [[The Sporting News]] called itself "The Bible (bible?) of Baseball" -- and thousands of sportswriters and their articles went along with this, never, as far as I know, in an ironic way. I've encountered other "bibles" but can't call them to mind at the moment -- they certainly exist(ed), though.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] ([[User talk:Hayford Peirce|talk]]) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
== snarky Twain quote ==
Probably can't work this into the article, but it's worth noting here: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain (On ''the'' Bible)  [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (CST)

Latest revision as of 10:49, 16 January 2023

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The Old and New Testaments (in Christianity) or just the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible (in Judaism). [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Religion [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Move?

Does the definite article belong in the title? Peter Jackson 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Books of the Bible be a subpage? I suggested that a long time ago but no one seems to have noticed. I can't find anywhere to post suggested moves. Peter Jackson 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't myself think "The" should be there. Just checked WP to see what *they* say about it, and they don't use "the" either. Volume 4 of my 1940 EB has "Bible", so that's two out of two. I suggest that we Move it. (Just checked the NYT Manual of Style, and they don't use it either, so that's three for three.)
As for Books of the Bible, I think a separate article is fine. There's plenty of other material to put in the Bible article itself. But I really don't care one way or the other. Hayford Peirce 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Who actually decides, and who actually does it? Peter Jackson 10:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that that sort of thing is just what Catalogs pages are for. Peter Jackson 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Peter, FWIW. --Larry Sanger 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've be-bolded. Also, I agree that 'books' ought to be a subpage, but not sure how to do that. Ro Thorpe 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition

That seems like a *really* strange definition to me. Could be about a collection of short stories by Conan-Doyle or John O'Hara. Hayford Peirce 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite common for books on all sorts of subjects to be called bibles, even in their titles. However, I don't think that's really appropriate for the main article, especially if it's the. Peter Jackson 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

wrong focus

This overview article should, as noted above, first contain a generic definition for any bible, as opposed the "The Bible" in Christian terms.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

For instance, for many many years, The Sporting News called itself "The Bible (bible?) of Baseball" -- and thousands of sportswriters and their articles went along with this, never, as far as I know, in an ironic way. I've encountered other "bibles" but can't call them to mind at the moment -- they certainly exist(ed), though.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

snarky Twain quote

Probably can't work this into the article, but it's worth noting here: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain (On the Bible) Pat Palmer (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (CST)