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.

Either un-protect or fix the Name section

This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--Conservateur 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

name section fixed. Karajou 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. MountainDew 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

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)

Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. Karajou 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

Not quite... see my remarks below. Dpbsmith 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. Karajou 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. Karajou 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. Tsumetai 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. Karajou 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that possibly a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point might do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. Karajou 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Instead of waiting...

Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. Karajou 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Remaining subheadings to add

Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? Karajou 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Separate articles

Clicked on Genesis, and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. Karajou 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

History of the Bible subheading

For this, I have a rough layout:

• From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
• the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
• Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
• The New Testament
• the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
• Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
• very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.

Any other suggestions would be helpful. Karajou 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Pictures

I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... Karajou 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

As it stands now

Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:

• Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
• If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.

Karajou 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Done

This article is done. Karajou 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Very very nice work there Karajou!! Kudos! --Cracker^talk 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! Karajou 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Careful! Under 'Name', Greek biblos did not mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the direct source was Greek biblia, 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being too sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --Petrus 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

...sources?

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm totally not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --Sid 3050 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just about the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. Karajou 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --Sid 3050 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. Karajou 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --Petrus 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

E-Sword pic

For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. Karajou 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Authorship of Hebrews?

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --Daniel B. Douglas 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on Genesis because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. Karajou 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Translations

At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The Blue Letter Bible deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --Petrus 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be overkill for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:

• If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
• If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. Karajou 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

(Title) Bible translations

When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as the translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the New Jerusalem Bible, with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The New English Bible, while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [2], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

3. A further useful reference is the Blue Letter Bible, which may be found here [3], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible or Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are not the original words!

[OK, try that for size!] --Petrus 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is the last block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

Differences Between Bible Versions might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? Karajou 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the Hebrew means either 'cornerstone' or 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a chief cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

Yes, Differences Between Bible Versions looks good to me (as long as you do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [4]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --Petrus 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that might carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). NousEpirrhytos 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. NousEpirrhytos 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. NousEpirrhytos 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. NousEpirrhytos 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. NousEpirrhytos 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest also looking into The Five Books of Moses, by Robert Alter, [5], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.

Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of en arche (why no Greek font?) and in principio than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.

Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. NousEpirrhytos 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. Karajou 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.

Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". NousEpirrhytos 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? Karajou 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --Petrus 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. Karajou 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. NousEpirrhytos 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --Petrus 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Portal

Please add [[Category:Book of Worship]] as a Bible category.--Eiyuu Kou 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can do! Karajou 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Truth redirect

Why is Truth redirected here?

Name

Once again, take care! Greek biblos doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and la Biblia isn't Latin (though biblia is)! --Petrus 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Found the source...biblos does mean book...but before that it came from byblos, meaning papyrus. biblos in turn led to the Latin word biblia, and the word bible came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. Karajou 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"

BTW, the word was never Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. NousEpirrhytos 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed this: ...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia... -- la is not a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article illa. NousEpirrhytos 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --Petrus 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!

BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. NousEpirrhytos 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! Karajou 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). NousEpirrhytos 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see dictionary.com. For future reference of the Greek definite article see here NousEpirrhytos 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ta Biblia, but he may have heard it as la Biblia...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. Karajou 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that Evidence That Demands a Verdict is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we would like the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's The Passover Plot and Finkelstein & Silberman's The Bible Unearthed ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --Petrus 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I made no attempt to "ram" the Bible down your throat, and I doubt anyone else has. But I am not going to sit here and let the Bible be disrespected because you have a personal dislike for it. Do not push that disrespect here. Karajou 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on all religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.

What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.

Now, when are you going to fix la to ta? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that la is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- if he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no true scholar of the NT. NousEpirrhytos 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. NousEpirrhytos 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Several things. First, you are saying that Evidence That Demands a Verdict is "biased" towards the Bible, Christian apologetics, etc. I've heard that excuse before, from an evolutionist who, when confronted with a book detailing evidence for a young creation, summarily dismissed it as "creationist", and refused to even look at it. That shows bias right there. What sort of bias did you bring to "Con-pedia" (as you call it)? Was it the sort of bias that is against the Bible? Do you intend to put anything at all possible here which disparages the Bible? And if you're truly educated than I need not remind you of the definition of "hearsay", as you know it yourself. I remind you, this article is about the Bible, and I don't have to explain things to people who come here with the intent of disparaging it. Do not do it here. Karajou 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? A simple yes or no will suffice. Karajou 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.

As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my modus legendi for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.

BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). NousEpirrhytos 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

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.

The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to this article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. This is Conservapedia. It's not "Liberalpedia". Karajou 12:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

So you're saying that they indeed got banned for questioning the Bible? Just a yes or no please, I want this black on [background color]. --Sid 3050 12:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

This question, Sid, is what you will answer first: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? Karajou 12:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)