Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible"
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:13, March 12, 2007
no discussion of the Bible? Muchodelcrazy 00:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Article is too brief!
This is The Bible! Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:
- Intro
- Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
- History of the Bible...as in who wrote it.
- Why the world accepts/rejects it.
- Current status
- Include pics and charts and links.
What say you? Karajou 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)
Why describe it when we can transcribe it?
Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.
- Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.
- I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? Karajou 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)
The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. Karajou 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)
What happened so far
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.
The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but after the others as listed.
The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.
Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. Karajou 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?
Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [1] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --Timothyo 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)