Talk:Bible

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Archive 1

What the serpent said

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. Karajou 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

la to ta and la-di-da

Karajou, when are you going to Personal remark removed accept that your beloved Merrill Unger (or his typesetter) was wrong: ta is the neuter plural nominative definite article; biblia is plural of biblion and hence takes ta. You have been given sources, you have been given evidence, but like the disgraced prosecutor in the Duke case you insist on defining evidence in your own incomprehensible manner. To top it off, you then attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in things of which your comprehension is negligible at best.

Your constant inane assertion that the bible was attacked not merely questioned points to your own immaturity, your inability to differentiate between gradation of meaning and the weakness of your faith. If you truly had faith, you would merely respond calmly to the questions Personal remark removed Ulysses 07:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Allow me to chime in with sources:

• http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible (see the origin section)

Both point at "ta biblia". --Sid 3050 10:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring the babyish rant above, I'm going to question the sources for two reasons: first, is the first one, which is from the LDS; the Mormon chuch has various differences between it's doctrine and what the Bible says (such will not be discussed here, but on a separate talk page on the subject with vaild sources backing it up); and the second reason is the fact that on the internet pages change as fast as one changes underwear. Since this subject ('la' or 'ta' biblia) has as it's basis the Greek and Latin languages, it would make sense to consult with those works, and unfortunately I insist on works from experts on the subject who have written for the sake of the language itself (in this case, I won't accept it if the author has written either for or against the Bible...this being for neutrality).

It would have to be Greek since Latin has no definite article. I think though you might err in suspecting the LDS source: their doctrinal difference between their teachings and orthodox Christianity should have no bearing on whether it's la or ta. Cracker_talk 11:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

In this case, the language has to be clear. Someone could pull up the Latin or Greek text from Berlitz as published today, and the user of the language would have no problem navigating the streets of Athens, but the source material I'm implying would be the language of the first or second century A.D., so it would have to be an ancient or medieval language scholar that we'd have to go to. Karajou 11:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

An example of change from the original to now is the word "Peter", which has come to mean "rock", as in Jesus proclamation of Peter's faith "Upon this ROCK I will build my church." The personal name Peter is related to the Spanish Pedro, the Greek Petros, and the Italian word Petri, all of which mean stone. The words petras, petros, and petra, also in the above respective languages, mean rock. For confirmation that Peter as being the rock is incorrect, you have to back to the Bible again, and John 1:42 specifically states And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him (Peter), he said "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas", which is by interpretation, a stone. Cephas is the Aramaic language word for stone. The reason I'm saying this in light of ta or la biblia is I have stated in an article paragraph as to where the source of the word came from, and if it is incorrect, then I want the correct version there to replace it, provided one does the research into the language for the time and pulls it out. I used Unger's version from 1966 because he did do a lot of research into those times and languages. Karajou 11:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

enespanol Daemon 11:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an online English resource. It's secular so it might not count. Cracker_talk

PBS and another source. I don't quite understand why you don't accept the dictionary.reference.com source, though. So far, everything seems to point at "ta biblia" - are you saying that they're all wrong? And why does the opening post keep vanishing? --Sid 3050 12:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What is it about going to an authoritative expert on ancient languages that you cannot understand? Karajou 13:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I see you perma-banned the guy who made the opening post... --Sid 3050 12:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)