nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: +
"Yes" will do.
:Psalms may not have had ''numbered'' "chapters", but the very fact that it is a collection of songs means that there were definite divisions there from the start, surely? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:Psalms may not have had ''numbered'' "chapters", but the very fact that it is a collection of songs means that there were definite divisions there from the start, surely? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yes and no. There were obvious breakpoints based on the content of Psalms, but just as all other books back then, it was a continuous scroll without any numbers or inserted breaks. (Think of the Dead Sea Scrolls) Psalms is actually one of the clearest books in the Bible for where divisions go due to the ability to tell where songs begin and end. It made it easy to do chapter divisions years later (verses breakdowns are always open to interpretation). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yes and no. There were obvious breakpoints based on the content of Psalms, but just as all other books back then, it was a continuous scroll without any numbers or inserted breaks. (Think of the Dead Sea Scrolls) Psalms is actually one of the clearest books in the Bible for where divisions go due to the ability to tell where songs begin and end. It made it easy to do chapter divisions years later (verses breakdowns are always open to interpretation). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll take the "yes", on the basis that there "were obvious breakpoints", plus the point that the "obvious breakpoints" existed because Psalms was a collection of discrete songs, not a single book. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)