Template talk:BibleGuide

Hi, I split the testaments and HR'd the split. If you disapprove, feel free to revert.

Also, perhaps the Commentary thing about Bible versions could/should be added to the template? (after it gets a better name...) human  18:20, 18 November 2007 (EST)


 * Just cleaning old red links. Researcher 20:04, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Combining books
Shouldn't we discuss this before doing it? Is it academically appropriate?  ħ uman  18:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT

I apologize and you can revert it if you wish. It's just we are not wikipedia, nor are we authoritative a source on the bible,  Sayng what the distinctions are in 1 Chronicles from 2 Chronicles, or what the Theology of 1 Timothy vs. 2 Timothy are seems to be a rather unrealistic goal. WE don't even have more than the sketchiest of descriptions of books like Ruth, or Solomon, or Psalms. I can tell you that every text book I've read or used on the matter of biblical study does do basic lumping of works as appropriate -- it's simply too detailed a task for a project like rational wiki, I think. If you want to write them, of course, that's your right as a knowledgeable Editor, but I truly think it's over kill for this project.
 * No need to apologise, and I understand the issue of these perhaps never being written... and as long as the "groupings" are fairly common ones I have no issue with it really. I lack the expertise to judge, so I was just asking to make sure they were common groupings.


 * And of course if anyone wants to, they can always add more articles and split them back up, since you didn't make weird new article names for the "combined" ones. Thanks for responding here, I appreciate it.  ħ uman  19:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

How Protestant can you get?
Template is missing the deuterocanonicals, though two of Christianity's three main branches (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) accept varying numbers of them. While the "Apocrypha" at the bottom of the listing are books which no major Christian denomination today accepts. Wikipedia's is much more accurate, maybe someone should copy the "Principal divisions" section? Their and  are even better — I like how the OT one accurately depicts the complexities of the differing Biblical canons among the Eastern churches. 11:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So fix it then. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Added missing books (2) Changed term "apocrypha" to "pseudepigrapha" — the later term is more accurate. 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the Catholics called it apocrypha. Pseudipigraphy implies crazy stuff like the Book of Enoch.--  22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The books actually listed under that heading (Gospel of Judas - Gospel of James - Gospel of Mary - Gospel of Philip - Gospel of Thomas - Nag Hammadi texts) are books that no present-day major Christian church accepts, what Catholics would tend to call Apocrypha and Protestants tend to call Pseudepigrapha (but Catholics don't mind the latter term either). Protestants call the extra books in the Catholic Bible "Apocrypha", but Catholics reject that term. These books are probably what you are thinking of when you say "crazy stuff like the Book of Enoch", but the Book of Enoch is actually accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox, which with 45 million adherents and a near 2000 year old history, is certainly a major Christian church. 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even Martin Luther accepted the apocrypha as defined by the Catholic Church. Not as actual scripture, but as a decent guide.  Anyways, I was addressing you in the context of Catholicism v. Protestantism.  Also, the Gospel of Judas counts as Gnosticism, right?  Maybe a subportal for religious variants:


 * Catholicism
 * Apocrypha
 * Gnosticism
 * Gospel of Judas et Al
 * You'd know better than me. You're the expert.--  23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, i fully disagree with the changes just made.


 * 1) this is a template to guide people through our wiki. do not add books we do not have pages on. It looks sloppy.
 * 2) this is, as named, a guide to the BIBLE.  the bible is a specific Old Church text with specifically accepted books in it.   Want to change that?  change the name of the template, to something like "christian gosple writings"   or "history of ancient religious writings".  but not "guide to the bible.
 * 3) The "torah" is not part of the bible, and it's disingenuous to use it here, in its Jewish context when this page is Christian in origin.
 * 4) Right now, it looks chaotic and busy, because it's trying to do to much. If you want to take on the we want to consider how we are presenting it and why.
 * 5) Apocrypha writings are just that - outside of the cannon "psuedoepigrapha" is a term that is not as academic as it is political to give a higher place to the Catholic apocryhpa. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Godot - part of the design of Wikis is to have redlinks, they are to encourage people to create new articles.
 * "the bible is a specific Old Church text with specifically accepted books in it" - historically, this is false. You are confusing the "Protestant Bible" with the "Christian Bible". Catholics consider the deuterocanon (not the apocrypha, that is a Protestant term) to be just as much part of the Bible as the books Protestants accept. Same goes for the Orthodox with their books.
 * You seem to be showing Protestant bias. 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)