Talk:Bible

The use of CE and BCE is objectionable, especially in the context of writing about the Bible. It makes no sense at all especially when CE and BCE are counted from the same point as AD and BC: the (formerly accepted) date of the birth of Christ. It seems to be the height of wokery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.166.176 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

should "to a certain degree" ... is held sacred etc etc be "to varying degrees". It is held sacred in Christianity and Judaism, inter alia. 2A00:23C8:2519:7000:E84B:C821:F616:1959 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Bible sales in the U.S. are up 30% in 2024 vs. 2023. One theologian suggests this is due to an aging Gen Z.

“They are now well into young adulthood – with the oldest past college age and youngest passing puberty. Rather than the internet-driven popular culture they have been drowning in, I wouldn’t be surprised if many are beginning to look for real-life answers now they are faced with social and career decisions,” Tommy Doughty said. “With loneliness and dislocation prevalent, especially in our socially-deprived youth, there is no wonder many would turn to renewed attempts at spiritual awakening.” [https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/]https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/bible-sales-growth-reflects-multi-years-trend-desires-to-explore-truth/

Anecdotal stories confirm people in their 20s and 30s are finding the Bible is connecting with them on a deeper level.

Cely Vazquez, a former reality show contestant and online influencer, documented her experience buying her first Bible at a Barnes and Noble on TikTok. Expressing her nervousness about the purchase, she said, "I have butterflies." In the video, Vazquez declared, "I have never purchased my own Bible or studied it or read it, and now, at 28 years old, I've been finding myself having this deeper craving for really understanding what it means to walk with God -- and I think that definitely starts with reading and studying the Bible," as The Washington Times reported. [https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788]https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/christianity-news/article-831788 Richronald (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:I am somewhat surprised. I had a bowdlerized children's illustrated bible as a child, and I had access to hardcover translations of the Bible as a teenager. Most of my atheistic beliefs derive from many hours of bible study, and from comparisons with other mythological material. Being 28-years-old at one's introduction to the reading material seems way too old in my eyes. What reading material do American children typically use? Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::Any response to that question would be an overgeneralization. In the immortal words of Cedric Neal: "You gotta start somewhere". I know many who came to Christianity in their 30s, 40s or later, after a lifetime of atheism or agnosticism. Incidentally, my Christian beliefs derive from many hours of comparing the Bible to other religions' holy texts, including at university, and Christianity to other religious (and atheistic) systems. So, to each their own. In short, I do not find this surprising. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Which article explains specifically about the sacred books of the Christian religion?

It might include older canons (such as Tanakh), and it might be included in newer canons. But there's supposed to be an article that's specific about Old Testament and New Testament at once.

הראש (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored a bit about the bible being used to support polygamy in the lead, which it definitely has been - it's not the mainstream view, but the usage is significant enough if we're going to list things it's been used for. See eg. the sources in Polygamy in Christianity for possible sources. However, this made me realize a bigger problem, which is that that entire list is both uncited and doesn't really reflect the body, aside from perhaps the body's mentions of the controversies over slavery and abolitionism. Should we add something to the body to reflect that part of the lead, with sources? This might lead to the contents of the list getting reconsidered or rebalanced once the relative weight of these things becomes more clear. --Aquillion (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:The simple and WP-correct solution is to remove the WP:LEAD-only stuff. If content on some of it is added to the article at some point, then it might be be a good idea to add it back. I remember there was a long discussion on the lead, but writing has probably changed since then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You should add a source that says the Bible is used to support monogamy, polygamy, death penalty, evangelization, etc, and thus the problem is solved. The other question is who uses the Bible to support such things? For example, do atheists, Christians or Jews use it to support polygamy? The article doesn't say it. Everything recently added could be considered original research.--JasterOmega (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ussher chronology#The chronology of USSHER can be confirmed with AI calculation. 95.90.183.164

Key Points

Research suggests the time difference of 243 years between Adam’s creation on October 23, 4004 BCE (per Ussher) and the Jewish calendar’s start at 3761 BCE stems from different interpretations of biblical genealogies.

It seems likely that Ussher used longer ages for post-Flood patriarchs, especially Terah’s age at Abraham’s birth (130 vs. 70 years in the Jewish calendar), adding extra years.

The evidence leans toward textual variations, like Septuagint vs. Masoretic Text, contributing to the gap, with Moses (c. AM 2,368) and Solomon (c. AM 3,034) dates showing similar shifts.

Time Difference Explanation

The 243-year gap arises because Ussher’s chronology, based on the Masoretic Text with adjustments, dates creation earlier than the Jewish calendar, which uses shorter post-Flood ages. For example, Ussher’s Abraham birth at AM 2,083 (1922 BCE) vs. Jewish calendar’s AM 1,948 (1814 BCE) shows a 135-year difference in years from creation, part of the 243-year total.

Impact of Moses and Solomon

Including Moses (born c. AM 2,368, 1526 BCE in Ussher, 1283 BCE in Jewish calendar) and Solomon (reign c. AM 3,034–3,074, 970–931 BCE in Ussher, 727–687 BCE in Jewish) highlights the gap, with historical kings like Hezekiah (715–686 BCE) aligning better with Ussher’s timeline, suggesting his dates fit verifiable history more closely.

Unexpected Detail: Textual Influence

An interesting aspect is how Ussher’s use of Septuagint ages for some patriarchs, like adding extra years post-Flood, shifts the timeline, affecting all subsequent dates, including Moses and Solomon, by the same 243-year offset.

Textual Comparison with German Einheitsübersetzung

The German Einheitsübersetzung follows the Masoretic Text, with Terah at 70 for Abraham’s birth, matching the Jewish calendar. It seems correct for traditional Jewish readings, but Ussher’s longer ages better align with historical kings, highlighting the debate over literal vs. symbolic interpretations.

--

All data in the Bible and the entire genealogy can be calculated with AI. All you have to do is think carefully about the task and have it checked for overlaps of action strands. The anchor point is the best verifiable Jewish king. Use deepsearch mode.

(talk) 10:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Short answer: Not usable in the WP-context. Long answer: Wikipedia:Large language models. You could consider a discussion forum like reddit or Quora. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bible Museum in St Arnaud, Australia, is no longer closed, I have just visited it. The museum is still located in St Arnaud. They also have an unusual 'Room of Bible Prophecies'. See their website for open hours, www.thebiblemuseum.com.au. 27.32.216.116 (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks for noticing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{re|GloryToCalifornia}} These edits of yours give primacy to Christianity in the lead and incorrectly state that the Bible, a core text of Judaism and Samaritanism, is only held partly sacred in those religions. This is simply not going to go. Both of your reasonings [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=1283869573 here] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=1283922073 here] don't affect the fact that the book is held sacred in all of these religions despite minor differences between them. This article is not about the Christian Bible, it is about the Bible as a whole in Judaism and Christianity and other religions. For specific articles see Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Catholic Bible, Protestant Bible, Samaritan Pentateuch, Islamic view of the Bible etc. {{re|Cyrobyte}} was correct in the initial revert and I don't see any particular discussion for such a major change beyond that.

What you have attempted is a certain Christian-based WP:POVPUSH which is unambiguously incorrect and based on incorrect reasoning. Gotitbro (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:First of all the word "partly" has been on the page before I even made an account. I didn't add it. I don't know why you're saying that. Since both of us didn't add it you have to keep it the way it is until you gain consensus since you wanna remove it and it's been on the page when I first looked at it. Also the Catholic, Protestant, and original Hebrew Bible all fall under Christianity. The first Bible had the new testament and Jews only believe in the old testament. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::it probably says "and party in Judaism, Islam, etc." because Christians believe Jesus died on the Cross etc. Everything in the Bible Old testament and new testament Christians believe, Muslims believe part of it but not the crucifying part or Jesus being the son of God. Jews only believe in one testament of the Bible etc. All religions besides Christianity partly believe in the Bible. Proof? Well if they believed Jesus died on the Cross like the Bible says they would all just be a branch of Christianity like Mormonism. They believe in parts of the Bible but not Jesus dying for people's sins and other stuff. Go ask a stranger what religion has the Bible as their book. They would say Christians. The Baháʼí religion believe in parts of the Quran and they believe in Muhammad but the Wikipedia article about the Quran doesn't say "it is the holy book of Islam and the Baháʼí Faith" it only mentions Islam because baaths only believe in the Quran partly. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for clarifying that the wording was not added by you, it was inserted [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=1265115705 here] by a now blocked user; preceded by the addition of undiscussed qualifiers by another user [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=1248594745]. This is not something that would fall under WP:STABLE.

::This article is not about the Christian Bible, your argument along the lines of the Christian-specific Testaments and beliefs does not hold up.

::We have entire articles (as I linked above) of the Bible as a sacred text in other Abrahamic religions.

::About Quran, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But on that line, the Bible is core to both Judaism and Christianity and also Samaritanism. It can be argued whether Bahai (or even Islam) should be included in the lead or replaced with a generic Abrahamic religions qualifier (that would require discussion) but Judaism and Christianity are not going anywhere per the preponderance of sources. Gotitbro (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Gotitbro wrote, {{tq|"This article is not about the Christian Bible"}}. I see what you're saying, that the article is broader than that, but I would also point out that Christian Bible just redirects to Bible#Christian Bible, while Hebrew Bible has a standalone article. ~Awilley (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's also Biblical canon. It's a bit complex. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The OTHERSTUFF shortcuts changed awhile back, your link in for deletion discussions, WP:OTHERCONTENT fits better here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looking back, I think the stable version on this was "some, all, or a variant of which, are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, Baha'i'ism and many other religions." That was in February. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::i looked at the page in February and it wasn't like that. But that actually sounds better than "and partly". Thank you for discussing instead of edit warring. @Gotitbro do you think this version sounds better? It's more clear. If we get your consensus on that we can change it to that instead GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies! I was looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&oldid=1210089885 an earlier February], my mistake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::looks like bro abandoned chat. You can change it to that if you want. The February 2024 version looks good. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::actually I got a better idea let me type it up hold on GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::How does "The Bible is a revered anthology of sacred scriptures, some all, or a variant of which are foundational to Christianity and other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, and the Bahà'i Faith." sound? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Once again I don't really see why this discussion is being made in the first place since Bahà'i's believe in the Quran partly but they're not mentioned on the first paragraph on the Wikipedia article about the Quran. not even using the word "partly". I really don't see the push to make the article confusing for people when other religions only believe the Bible partly. But I guess this is life. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:OTHERCONTENT is rarely a good argument around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That doesn't work. You're putting "revered" and "sacred" in WP-voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Im mentioning other content as an example because why is the Bible an exception to the page about the Quran. It's really a logical thought. why doesn't this apply to the page about the Quran. And hey technically Christians partly believe in the Quran because the Quran talks about Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Abraham etc. Why isn't that included on the first paragraph about the Quran. Christians partly believe in it why isn't Christianity mentioned. I know Wikipedia editors and guidelines don't view this as a logical argument but you can't explain why things are like that GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::How does "The Bible is an anthology of sacred scriptures, some all, or a variant of which are foundational to Christianity and other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, and the Bahà'i Faith." sound? I removed revered. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No. "The Bible is a collection of religious texts" is a very good start here, and you still have WP-voice declaring "sacred".

::::::::::On "Why isn't that included on the first paragraph about the Quran." See WP:LEAD.

::::::::::If you want "Christians partly believe in it" to be included in that article, get some really good academic WP:RS that states that and add it to the article body. But again, off-topic for this talkpage. This is logic in WP-land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Hold on let me craft something different. I'm trying to make sure we all reach a consensus. I know people have lives so you can respond whenever you want. Especially if you're busy. I'll be back in 5-20 minutes crafting different stuff to see if we got a consensus on it. And other editors reading you'r welcome to join if you want. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ok what about "The Bible is a collection of religious texts, some all, or a variant of which are sacred to Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, the Bahà'i Faith, and others." I crafted other alternatives too so I won't get mad if you say no. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Jenhawk777, feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm going to bed. I got work and stuff. I'll get up in about 4-7 hours. If jenhawk777 comes by and you guys reach consensus I'll tell you what I think in the morning and then we can add whatever edit. It's 1:30 AM here in California. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Ok I'm back. Take your time GloryToCalifornia (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Judaism and Samaritanism playing second fiddle doesn't work well at all. In "revered anthology of sacred scriptures", the first word is WP:POV, anthology is OR (I doubt the preponderance of RS use it).

:::::::From a brief survey of our articles on the Bible and Biblical texts, our article should give equal footing to Judaism and Christianity (in that order) perhaps along with Samaritanism. I will make a review of major 3PARTY sources and propose a better lead sentence but that is going to take some time. Gotitbro (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know of preponderance, but it's certainly sourceable [https://www.google.se/books/edition/The_Complete_Literary_Guide_to_the_Bible/A2GCDsFC3XMC?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=is+the+bible+an+anthology&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover][https://www.google.se/books/edition/Sinning_in_the_Hebrew_Bible/m4-Cz7FNmBYC?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=the+bible+is+an+anthology&pg=PT21&printsec=frontcover][https://www.google.se/books/edition/Anthologies_of_British_Poetry/UBlREAAAQBAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=the+bible+is+an+anthology&pg=PA73&printsec=frontcover], and IMO an anthology is a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler is pretty bluesky here. It's even an anthology of anthologies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The core issue here isn't really about POV or verifiability, it's about article scope and what we take the meaning of the word "Bible" to be. If you take "Bible" as inherently including both the Old and New Testaments, then an unqualified claim that the Bible is sacred in Judaism is inaccurate, as the NT is not sacred in Judaism. However the way the article is currently written "Bible" could refer to any of several different canons, including the Hebrew Bible which excludes the NT. As currently written it is most correct to say that the Bible is sacred and foundational in Christianity, Judaism, and probably Samaritanism. All three of those groups believe that "the Bible" is fully sacred, not sacred in part, they just disagree on what "the Bible" is. -- LWG ^talk 16:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Mm, yes. Since biblical canons come up later in the lead, skipping "partly" is ok. Bible is like football in that sense, what you mean when you say it. In Judaism, the johnnie-come-lately bits doesn't count, and in Islam there is tahrif. I'm not sure all parts of all groups here would agree on "sacred" either, but it's probably close enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::ok I'm back GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@LWG all three religions do not believe the Bible to be "fully sacred". The full Bible is the full Bible, the old and new testament Christian Bible, that's how the Bible was when it became a book. The book became influential Over time and groups started taking stuff out like how Islam and Samaritanism took out how Jesus died on the Cross etc. if I were to start my own religion, take stuff out of the Quran, will Wikipedia say "this dudes religion believes in the Quran fully because Muslims and this dude's followers argue what the Quran really is". No that's absolute nonsense. There's one Bible, Catholics believe everything in it, Protestants cut a few stuff out. and other religions believe in in partly. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's obvious that you consider the Christian canon (specifically the Roman Catholic version apparently) to be the only valid denotation of the name "the Bible". That's not how the term is used here, nor is that the only scope of what this article is about. The subject you are describing is covered at Biblical canon and Catholic Bible. This article covers the full range of possible meanings for the term, including ones like Jewish and Muslim views. Obviously, some or all of these views are incorrect. Since these groups disagree on what books are included in the Bible, either some of them are wrong or all of them are wrong. They can't all be right. But whether these groups have the correct understanding of what the Bible is is beside the point here: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so all we do is report what people in the reliable sources are saying. In situations like this where people out there have differing views, by necessity Wikipedia will include views that some people believe to be incorrect. If you can't make your peace with that, I suggest you try looking for a more ideologically focused project to contribute to. -- LWG ^talk 21:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::the first Bible is the Bible, if I remove stuff from the Quran that doesn't mean there's 2 Qurans, I just have half of it because I cut out parts. That's how it should be with the Bible. either Catholic or Orthodox are the real Bible, I forgot what church came first. One or two branches of Christianity, the first version of Christianity, technically believes in the full Bible while over time other groups that were created by people just cut stuff out as the Bible became more influential. Once again imagine if I just cut stuff out of the Quran and created my own group, there's not 2 Qurans there's only one. And with Jews they also only believe one testament, which is also "partly". GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::i might propose new lead ideas later so we can all come to an agreement. But I also find it weird that "Christianity, and partly in _____" have been on this page for months and months. This page about the Bible probably has hundreds of thousands of visits from users and people who don't have an account. If the information is wrong why has it been there for so long and only like 3 out of thousands and thousands and thousands of people care to change it. Muslims don't seem to be offended. None of the religious groups you say consider Bible the "fully sacred", none of these religious groups saw this and like "man this information is so wrong" because I'm pretty confident that information is correct. Wikipedia wants to be inclusive even if they're completely wrong in doing so. Look up the definition of "Bible" on Google, it only mentions Christianity. Everyone associates the Bible with Christianity. Other religions took stuff out of the Bible, added stuff for their own holy books like the Muslims did with the Quran, or how Bahà'i's took from both the Quran and the Bible. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But if you add the comparatively short NT you invented "The Bible"? Again, the subject of this article is not the same as "Christian Bible", like Flood myth is not the same as Genesis flood narrative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::LWG, on "Since these groups disagree on what books are included in the Bible, either some of them are wrong or all of them are wrong." Or all of them are right, these groups can have their own preference without it being "wrong". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gråbergs Gråa Sång bro that's complete nonsense. All of the religions that decided to change the Bible can't all be right. All religions contradict each other so if there is God and an afterlife only one religion is the truth. This is common sense. Now I know there's absolutely no reasoning with you. How can Muhammad be a messenger of God and say Jesus didn't die on the Cross and that's true, but it's also true Jesus died on the Cross because Christians believe it and all religions and interpretations are right and true according to you, even if they contradict. All religions with their biblical interpretations contradict each other bro, so they can't "all be right". Please critically think. Also once again it's crazy how you only wanna include all religions on the Wikipedia article about the Bible, but with the Quran yeah let's just ignore that Bahà'i's took from the Quran, let's only say the Quran is the Muslims holy book on the article about the Quran while mentioning random religions no one's even heard of on the page about the Bible, random religions with less than 10 million followers. This is why we should keep "partly" because there's only one Bible and other religions just take a little bit from it for their holy books, so they only believe in the Bible partly, it's literally common sense GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::this conversation is going absolutely nowhere. I've got work in the morning, I'm going to bed earlier than what I did last night, when I wake up in 7-9 hours I'll propose different lead proposals, something I also agree with that's actually logical. we can vote on something, you can make your own proposals too etc. we've all spent hours wasting our time for no reason for one tiny sentence. I'm going to bed too late. Bye. I'll message in here when I wake up GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok I'm back. I don't feel like doing anything right now so maybe 3-5 hours or something. I don't know. All I know is when we start hopefully we can get this over with quick. We're arguing about a tiny little sentence that's technically true if you do research. But whatever I'm making new lead proposals that are also logical, in the hours when I feel like it GloryToCalifornia (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::ok I'm back, how about you guys propose leads first GloryToCalifornia (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@GloryToCalifornia I'm in the midst of a high-priority project in my non-wiki responsibilities right now and won't be able to talk more about this until next week. I think there's a productive conversation to be had here about how we describe the different understandings of what the Bible is and the differents roles the Bible has in different faiths. But to put it bluntly nothing I've seen so far in this discussion suggests that you have a deep enough understanding of the collaborative process we use here. Articles like this take a lot of nuance to work with since the people out there in the real world have so many different perspectives and Wikipedia's role is not to judge between them but simply to report what the sources are saying so the readers can have more access to information. The things you are saying here are the sorts of arguments you should be using out in the real world to persuade people of the truth, then if you succeed, the sources will reflect that, and then Wikipedia will do our best to reflect the sources. If you are here to explain to us why the Muslim or Jewish or Mormon or whatever views of the Bible are incorrect, you are in the wrong place and you are wasting all of our time. -- LWG ^talk 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not saying the Muslim or Jewish or Mormon view of the Bible is incorrect, I'm saying the first Bible is the Bible. If you create a religion and take from the Bible partly for your holy book like how Muslims still believe in Jesus and stuff in the Quran, there isn't two Bibles, the Muslims just believe in it partly. If I took from the Quran partly if I had my own group there's only one Quran still. That's literally all I'm saying. Good bye, see you next week I guess GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The first bible being the Hebrew bible, then? Of course, it also accrued over centuries, but at least it doesn't have that later 2nd millennia stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The first Bible was Christian and it came out mid-4th century CE. The old testament existed before that and it was only a Jewish thing, but the old testament wasn't a book it was just a collection of prophecies and scriptures and stuff. The Christians created the new testament to add to the old testament believing Jesus was the Messiah the old testament prophesied, and Jews rejected it. Someone put all of these scriptures together in one big book called the Bible. Jews only believe in it partly, the old testament. But the first Bible was either Orthodox or Catholic I forgot which branch of Christianity was the earliest. Probably Catholic but not entirely sure GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Coming here from a notification at WikiProject Religion. It's a bit unclear what the status quo was before this dispute arose, but I'm going to assume it was something like this: {{tq|The Bible is a collection of religious texts or scriptures which to a certain degree are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, the Baháʼí Faith, and other Abrahamic religions.}} That's not terribly problematic in my opinion, but if I had to nit pick, I would say that it is more a Christian thing than a thing of the other religions mentioned. The particular collection of writings we call the Bible is basically the foundational text of Christianity. Judaism, from what I understand, does not accept the Bible as a whole to be scripture, assuming that we're talking about the version of the Bible that includes the New Testament, which I believe we are. Islam accepts the Bible (with some asterisks) but their primary foundational text is the Quran. Baháʼí is an odd inclusion, as the Bible is not mentioned at all under Baháʼí_Faith#Sacred_texts. Samaritanism is an even odder inclusion, since it basically rejects all but the first 5 books of the Bible (the Torah) and is one of the smallest religions in the world, with less than 1,000 members globally. {{pb}} Given the above, I would suggest a rephrasing along the following lines:

:*{{tq|The Bible is a collection of religious writings that are held to be sacred scripture in Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in varying degrees by Islam and other Abrahamic religions.}}

:or:

:*{{tq|The Bible is a collection of religious writings central to Judaism and Christianity and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam.}}

:or if we're going for short and simple:

:*{{tq|The Bible is a collection of religious books written over many centuries that is sacred to both Jews and Christians.}}

:or for something different:

:*{{pb}} {{tq|The Bible is a collection of religious writings sacred to Christianity and Judaism, consisting of the Old Testament—or Hebrew Bible—and the New Testament.}}

:My own preference would be for something like the first or the second, though I also like the idea of a Lead sentence including something about the "when" ("over many centuries") in addition to the "who" and the "why". ~Awilley (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Awilley, thanks for commenting. I like the second proposal best, IMO Judaism gets mentioned first per seniority/they started it. Christianity has more people of course. The paragraph later states "Believers generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies." which IMO takes care of "sacred" etc.

::The WP:LEAD needs something better on {{when}} I think, but not necessarily in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. "The oldest parts of the Bible are from xth century, and the newest parts had more or less formed by the 4th century." Something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Awilley, I really like your suggestions. They're really good. Finally some common sense. I think the paragraph that says "The Bible is a collection of religious books written over many centuries that is sacred to both Jews and Christians" sounds good. But sense the Bible is more associated with Christianity I think we should write "Christians and Jews" instead of "Jews and Christians". Thank you. This conversation was going absolutely nowhere GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I just re-read all of the paragraphs and now I changed my mind I'm going with paragraph two. Instead of saying "The Bible is a collection of religious writings central to Judaism and Christianity and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam." I think Christianity should be mentioned first since it's more associated with the Bible, followed by Jews then Muslims etc. so me and Gråbergs Gråa Sång have officially came to an agreement. LWG left the conversation because he was busy, and Awilley is probably fine with either paragraph because he suggested them. I think we've reached a consensus if he allows Christianity to be mentioned first. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't care enough about the order to argue for either. I honestly didn't put much thought into order when I wrote it, and I certainly don't expect any of my suggestions to make it into the article without tweaks and revisions. Both orders work. Judaism came first chronologically, (Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam), but Christianity is bigger than Judaism and more relevant to the specific word "Bible". But I really don't think the order matters that much.

:::::Side note: I didn't track who LWG is or what they were saying before they got busy and left the conversation, but I would mention that I'm busy myself and will probably have to leave the conversation shortly as well. ~Awilley (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm removing "and scriptures" from the first sentence since there's no difference between religious texts and scriptures. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::ok cool. Scriptures are a form of religious texts so I don't know why it said "scriptures and texts". Most importantly Thanks for letting Christianity get mentioned first even though you preferred Judaism in your original message, since Christianity is more relevant to the specific word "Bible". Last message from me. Now that consensus is officially reached someone will probably close this conversation later. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I worked on this article some years ago and was recently asked to weigh in on the lead. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to answer, but I've been out of town and off-line for a while. I think the claim {{tqq|The Bible is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam.}} makes it sound as if the whole Bible is equally important to Judaism and Christianity, which we all know is inaccurate. How about a period after {{tqq|The Bible is a collection of religious texts.}} Period. Then a new sentence that covers some of what was removed: "These texts are important, but aspects are viewed differently in Christianity, Judaism and Islam." or "These texts are important in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but not equally nor the same parts." which is a little awkward but conveys that the different religions place different value on them and on different aspects of them - some such thing should be said. It's misleading as it is now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's why "partly" existed but people voted to remove it, and I personally believe the religions should be mentioned in the first sentence. I got an Idea hold on. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Let's just go with "The Bible is a collection of religious texts, some, all, or a variant of which are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam." Sound good? If that sounds good go ahead and add it I'm too lazy. If it doesn't tell me and I'll come up with another idea GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Jenhawk! There are certainly several ways to skin this particular cat, and several things one wants to accomplish at the same time.

:My reading of "The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon." is that, say, the KJV and the Hebrew bible are both "The Bible" in this context, so "central to Judaism" works for me here, I don't read it as a contradiction, one just has to read more of the WP:LEAD. To cherry-pick a quote from Bible by John Barton: "The Bible is centrally important to both Judaism and Christianity ..." If there is a difference in the weight Judaism and Christianity put on their respective bibles, I have no opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:We could perhaps rearrange the paragraph like so:

:The Bible is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam. The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. The Bible is an anthology (a compilation of texts of a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The texts include instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres. Believers generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

:I noted in the thread above that I think Judaism should be mentioned first per seniority/starting it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Christianity needs to be mentioned first. It's the religion everyone associates with "Bible". GloryToCalifornia (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Gråbergs Gråa Sång The problem not addressed here is that the entire Bible is not important to Judaism, and this says it is. The New Testament has no place in Judaism, nor is the entire Bible important as anything but a quaint anomaly for Islam. GloryToCalifornia Why is it necessary to mention these three in the first sentence? The Bible is not equally central to these separate religions. Trying to make a statement that embraces them all, yet leaves others out completely, is the source of the problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's not how I read it. The Bible central to Judaism is the Bible Judaism accepts as Bible, and the paragraph deals with that, taken as a whole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Quoting @LWG from the thread above, "However the way the article is currently written "Bible" could refer to any of several different canons, including the Hebrew Bible which excludes the NT. As currently written it is most correct to say that the Bible is sacred and foundational in Christianity, Judaism, and probably Samaritanism. All three of those groups believe that "the Bible" is fully sacred, not sacred in part, they just disagree on what "the Bible" is." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::On having "...and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam." in the first sentence, that looks fine to me, the other Abrahamics should be mentioned early. Doesn't have to be first sentence, but it doesn't bother me, Islam is biggest of the other Abrahamics mentioned in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::LWG is wrong and I debunked his arguments like several of times. This is annoying I'm just going to go with the thing I proposed everyone ignored. Scroll up on this thread to see what is was if you didn't see it GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just fixed this page hopefully it sticks GloryToCalifornia (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I rolled back that change, not because you are necessarily wrong, but because we should wait for agreement of multiple people on this, and because the text that resulted was ungrammatical. -- LWG ^talk 21:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To the main question here: I agree with GloryToCalifornia that if this subject if this article is supposed to be the Catholic Bible only, then we shouldn't say that the whole Bible is foundational to Judaism, since they don't accept all of the Christian canon. But if we want to re-scope this article to only cover the Christian canon, we need to edit it a lot, because right now that's not how the article is written. Until we do, the lead should reflect the scope that the article does, which includes the various collections that Jews call "the Bible". Personally I think the most sensible thing to do is to keep the broad scope here and let articles like Catholic Bible, Hebrew Bible, Biblical canon etc cover the narrow scopes. It's not a hill I want to die on - if the general consensus here is something else so be it. -- LWG ^talk 21:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that the article should keep the general scope approach. Bible is, among other things, an article for all bible canons, kind of similar to football. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So are we going to keep the page the way it is then? Might as well. We spent days and hours and hours to achieve consensus, just to start over in one day. And once again I personally think Christianity should be mentioned first. It's the religion most associated with the word Bible. If you look up the word "Bible" on Google, Google gives a definition that says it's "Christian scriptures". If you ask a random person "what religion is associated with the Bible" I'm 95% sure they would say "Christianity". I mean it's common sense, plus you seem like the only person who wants to add Judaism first. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Gråbergs Gråa Sång I'm sorry my friend, you know I deeply respect and appreciate you but your response above {{tqq|That's not how I read it.}} is problematic. Your opinion is not the deciding factor - WP standards are. WP states plainly (quotes are mine) {{tqq| If interpretation "could be" ambiguous, use links "or rewording" to make it clearer.}} If anyone could ever read that sentence as ambiguous - whether you personally do so or not - then it's a bad sentence. It can be misinterpreted, even if not by you, therefore it needs rewording. There is no real debate possible on that particular point. WP standards must be the deciding factor.

:::::: The rest of your comment is also problematic - and kind of proves the point here. {{tqq|The Bible central to Judaism is the Bible Judaism accepts as Bible, and the paragraph deals with that, "taken as a whole."}} If the reader has to read the entire paragraph to figure out what the first sentence means, that's pretty much a give-away it's lacking clarity. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting {{tqq|involves the "five Cs": making the article clear... effective writing is clear...}}. Just give on this one. The sentence is not worth fighting to keep.

:::::: LWG I agree with you, the scope of the article should be kept. I don't think anyone has disagreed, so there is consensus on that one point.

:::::: GloryToCalifornia I agree with you about listing Christianity first as the most associated with the term Bible. And you are the only other editor here, so far, who has acknowledged that seeing only part of it as sacred is necessary to include, so kudos there as well. However, none of the suggested changes are genuine improvements - yet. I object to your artificial requirement that the three religions be included in the first sentence. This is not an article about them, it's about the Bible. That focus should be clear, and mentioning the religions later, rather than sooner, allows that. Even if you disagree, I ask for a good-faith compromise on this particular issue. That would go a long way toward resolving this.

:::::: Since one of the five "Cs" is "concise", I tend to like short, to the point, sentences like "The Bible is a collection of religious texts." But if no one else agrees that is a sufficient opening sentence, then combining it with the next sentence makes the most sense:

:::::: The Bible is a collection of religious texts developed over time as an anthology (a compilation of texts in a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Divided into the Old and the New Testaments, the Bible includes instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres. Both Testaments of the Bible are central to Christianity which generally describes it as divinely inspired. Judaism only recognizes the Old Testament as sacred. Islam states the Bible was once divinely inspired but is currently corrupted. Other faiths, such as the Bahai and the Rastafarian faiths, also see the Bible as sacred.

:::::: Because if we mention one faith we need to mention them all for neutrality. This has the Bible's primary characteristics - including the two testaments which should be there and weren't - and it includes the differing views by the different faiths - later not sooner. If anyone does not like this approach, adjustments can be made, but please be prepared to offer some good reasons why. Otherwise, we should make the changes and be done. This has gone on way too long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Likewise! I'll copy the current first paragraph here for comparison.

:::::::The Bible is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam. The Bible is an anthology (a compilation of texts of a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The texts include instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres. The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

:::::::Above I suggested moving a sentence like so:

:::::::The Bible is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam. The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. The Bible is an anthology (a compilation of texts of a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The texts include instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres. Believers generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

:::::::Consensus will be what it will be, I know that "That's not how I read it" is not the deciding factor, I was stating my opinion on the article text, and I consider it a reasonable one. To me, your version of the first paragraph seems Christian-centric with the "Both Testaments of the Bible", "Judaism only recognizes the Old Testament..." (my emphasis and link). My reading (again) is that you're making the Christian Bible the Bible, and that is not the approach of this article, but there are absolutely biblical canons with two testaments. We don't need to mention all faiths per WP:LEAD (for the rest of the article there is WP:PROPORTION, WP:DUE etc. WP:NPOV and "neutrality" can often be seen as wildely different). Baháʼí Faith isn't mentioned in the article at all, that's a major WP:LEAD-fail, and IMO it's clear Rastafarianism doesn't fit per WP:LEAD either. If people want to strike "such as Islam", fine, but it does have some article content. It is strange to me to remove biblical canon from the lead, a lot of the content in the article relates to that.

:::::::On "If the reader has to read the entire paragraph to figure out what the first sentence means, that's pretty much a give-away it's lacking clarity.", I don't think that works as guide in general, we can never put everything in one sentence, but of course as Wikipedians we'll spend time on discussing, well, anything, it's what we do. Going very WP:OTHERCONTENT for an example, "The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States." is only the third sentence at African Americans, and that has been debated for years per ADOS views etc. From where I'm sitting, "The Bible is a collection of religious texts that are central to Christianity and Judaism, and esteemed in other Abrahamic religions such as Islam. The collection of materials accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon." is clear enough for that particular piece of text. It's two sentences of a long (!) article with plenty of detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I like GGS's amendments above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I give up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Let me get this straight. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång can use an example of a Wikipedia page, the page on African Americans, but when I was using an example for how this article should be, the page on Quran, he said I'm not allowed to do that because it violates WP:OTHERCONTENT. It's either all okay or none of it is okay GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I didn't say you couldn't, I said it's rarely a good argument. If you read WP:OTHERCONTENT, you'll see you can't really "violate" it since it suggests "is generally unconvincing". Your Quran argument may have been convincing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: For clarity: I was notified about this via a WikiProject post and didn't read the whole chain. I read the most recent suggestions (GGS's above) and it looked pretty reasonable to me. If you think this is wrong, you should write your own draft and start an RFC. Don't let one (uninformed) comment dissuade your desire to improve content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I didn't read any comments you know. hi there, have a great day. Don't blame me, I don't know what I'm doing 🤷 ⟨⟨Beastboy-𝕏-Talk!⟩⟩ 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Really? Not trying to be bad but Really? I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but listen up!, One Bible does not belong to

:ifferent religions, I don't know I your country, but In my country, it's a sin to touch a Christian Bible (Holy Bible) if you are a Muslim, you will be greatly punished for that, if you leave Islam and go to other religions, they will kill you. This article needs to be split into three articles: Holy Bible, Islam Bible and Judaism Bible. These Bibles are totally different, Islam says there is no Jesus but Christians say there is, Even Christian stands for Christ like Character. ⟨⟨Beastboy-𝕏-Talk!⟩⟩ 23:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::literally everything you said is false. Muslims believe Jesus to be the Messiah but they don't believe he died on the Cross, they just believe he was a prophet of Allah like Muhammad. Also secondly this article is split. There's a Wikipedia article about the Catholic Bible, Muslim interpretations on the Bible and how they view it to be corrupted over time, the Protestant Bible and the old testament which only Jews believe in GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::By the way can we close this discussion already it didn't lead us anywhere we should be done GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: OK, I'm a SDA Christian and I know all about it and I'm a child so I'm really sturborn so yeah, whatever!. Anyway, if it's the same Bible, they know that they believe in lies that the keepers told people:

::::Matthew 28:13 (KJV) Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

::::Matthew 28:15 (KJV) So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

::::I'm deeply sorry (But I an't wrong) if this offend you or anyone else, please forgive me 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺. Have a great day and happy editing!🥰🥰🥰.

::::Case Closed ⟨⟨Beastboy-𝕏-Talk!⟩⟩ 15:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)