RationalWiki talk:Annotated Bible

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

come on lets do it! tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

How about you write rewrite that article so I can paste it to cp. SHahB 18:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
What's wrong with the SAB? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 19:49, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not snarky enough. Not enough new, made up stories. Too many Jesuses, too few fish... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
SAB is so like last decade, not to mention that rationalwiki also includes people that would not be called "skeptics" that could offer a chance to tighten up skeptical criticism and offer their own. Not to mention that it is a monstrously huge project that could keep bored people entertained for a long time. tmtoulouse beleaguer 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Annotated, not abridged, even though it is tempting to cut out all the irrelevant bits. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 21:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

King James Right? I mean that is the one that God endorses right? tmtoulouse beleaguer 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's the only version that wasn't twisted by the devil's conspiracy in the catholic church!Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 21:43, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I believe Conservapedia would call this "Concise!" Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you :) The only sad thing is it took me only 3 edits, rather than the obligatory 12 Kendoll takes to type three sentences. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:14, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

And the objective is?[edit]

I'm sorry if I'm being a little dim here , but is our objective here do do a side by side of the whole bible?--Bobbing up 14:16, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I am thinking, you know, long term here! tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Here is my vision, get the whole Bible into the site and set up in a template that would allow for quoting of the bible by simple doing a somting like {{bible|john|4|11}} with a link back to the original context. Any annotation would be sweet as well. There is really no reason we have to but it sounded fun to try. tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:22, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
We should do it for all the MPFC episodes and movies, and HHGTTG, as well. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:42, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Anything is possible.......... tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:45, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I am working at creating a bot to try and bring over the Bible from the Gutenberg Project. I will start with genesis and see if it can even work the way I want. tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:46, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
You kan haz sickx daiz too doo it. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
And duh sebenf you getza rest. ThunderkatzHo! 15:15, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Which version are you going for? <not serious>(Actually I suppose you could go for original languages and have the academics amongst us do a verse by verse translation.)</not serious>--Bobbing up 17:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I seem to recall exactly that being suggested half a year ago. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 17:36, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

First Version of Bible Generator[edit]

So the first version is open for beta testing with the book of Genesis, it is a parser function that works as: <bible book=Genesis chapter=* verse1=*/>. I am working on trying to do multiple verses at a time using a verse2 variable. But uh what are thoughts so far? tmtoulouse beleaguer 19:43, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Well version 2.0 is all ready out it now works as <bible book=Genesis chapter=* verse1=* verse2=*/> with verse1 being the first verse to show and verse2 being the last verse. tmtoulouse beleaguer

I dunno, let's try:

Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God [Elohim] said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Is that how it's supposed to work? Oops, no. 21 < 3 in alphanumeric order. Also, it included the whole damn book, it looks like. It did, however, successfully put Genesis 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 at the end... nowiki-ing before saving. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:07, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
That's better. Very nice work. Can you stop the import bot from inserting BRs in the verses? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:22, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Some reason chapter 1 is fucking up let me look at the code. tmtoulouse beleaguer 20:17, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that was a ridiculously easy fix, somehow Genesis 1:1 never made it to the wiki. tmtoulouse beleaguer 20:21, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Well anyway, I am off to get drunk, leave feedback/suggestions here and I will start working on getting the other books imported as well. Next step is setting it up so we can offer any annotations we might want.... tmtoulouse beleaguer 20:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I had to move this because the prefix wasn't right, and now the tag doesn't work. ThunderkatzHo! 20:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Nevermind. ThunderkatzHo! 20:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Did the drunk thing work out, Taradiddle? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes the drunk thing worked out quiet well, including getting lost in a drainage ditch in the middle of the mesa. tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Importing books[edit]

I have gone through 4 books now, I think it is working out okay, so I am going to go ahead and write the bot that will import them all in. tmtoulouse beleaguer 23:43, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

FIX THE BRs seriously. Or do a bot after that strips them. Otherwise, yeah, it's working. You gonna get the apocrypha, and the book of whoever else is disrespected, too? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
They are fixed aren't they? tmtoulouse beleaguer 00:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Apparently, looking at the example currently on display. Cool, thanks. Nice work! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
BR needs to be replaced by a space. See current example for tiny screw up, ktxbai :) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

just a suggestion but wouldn't the heaadlines look better down "===" a notch or possibly "====" two? SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:39, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Which'd also remove the built in hr which is distracting to say the least. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Irrelevant, they are a database which generates what you see on this article page under "bible generator". ħumanUser talk:Human 00:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey! that's clever - not been paying attention - naughty me! SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Phase 1 complete[edit]

RationalWiki now has its own KJV Bible. tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

That is truly excellent! Really .... I mean ... excellent! SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. My knowledge of the relevant computer languages mediawiki is based on is getting better, these kinds of things are fun/good practice and people always can find clever uses for it all. tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I'll have to get my own wiki - I'm hosted by scribble @ the moment so can't get at the nuts & bolts - I love playing. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Gotta do the Koran, the Vedas, and Dianetics now! ħumanUser talk:Human 13:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Phase 2[edit]

As the title suggests with annotated I think this should be set up such that we can include annotations to any part of the bible, the side by side template structure could work for that but we don't want to make the Bible Generator work too hard to find the actual verses. I was thinking of trying to transclude the verse/annotations onto a page? Suggestions? tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, the template is close to working. It phails on books with a space in them (try 1 timmy, eg, as I did). ALSO the BRs have to be replaced with SPACES not "nothing", the words get jammed together. Otherwise, an amazing effort. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
For spaces putting them in quotes will make it work, and I did replace the br with spaces I thought. Are they still getting jammed? tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
There's a dog loose in the wood. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Sock of BluesPotion, et al 01:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I dunno about the BRs, but the spaces work now. Maybe preview is just slow to catch up? Or maybe I am? I'll check the BRs again now. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
If the title has a space you have to put it in quotes, you can use quotes anytime as well but not needed unless for the space. tmtoulouse beleaguer 01:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
It looks like you fixed the BRs. Sadly, the code doesn't play well with "preview" from what I can tell. Of course, you are working so fast, my previews might be behind the jet lag. Gonna grab the apocrypha? (I wouldn't know if you already did) ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


To get back on track... now that we have the whole thing, Ch. & verse, at hand, the annotations can be in a separate file (perhaps one for each book?), and pull the bible part from the "templates"? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I see you are experimenting... by the way, having all those right-side headers be the same makes editing tougher (after save it will return to the first one). And, as I'm sure you know, the "bible" tag now returns the commentary as well. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Yea, you have to do all the text processing using regular expressions, and regular expressions are way more complicated than they need to be, particularly at 4 am. But yea I think I have it bypassing all the comments now. The "notes" can be named whatever we like, suggestions? tmtoulouse beleaguer 13:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
How about the same name as the verse header? With or without "Comments on..."? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Feature request[edit]

Is there any way to make it just create one "header" when there are multiple verses? Like:

Genesis 1:1 - 3 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Genesis 1

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The verse numbers might should be "sup"ed as well. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, done. tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, excellent! The link thing is sweet, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


Just out of curiosity, what version is this? --CPAdmin1 11:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

KJV, IIRC. ROFL, IMHO. ThunderkatzHo! 12:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


Once annotations are added, how will they appear? As refs? Or not at all? Or something else? ThunderkatzHo! 22:09, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

In the verse generator? At the moment they are ignored completely. Haven't thought about how/if to include them. tmtoulouse beleaguer 22:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't transclude them with the VG if I were you. The VG links to the verses quoted, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:21, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

How to discuss?[edit]

I am not sure how to discuss the annotations. I put them on the page because I figured if I did it on the talk page it would be a pain to figure out what I was talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong. --CPAdmin1 22:33, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, do it on the talk page. Mention chapter and verse, and quote what you are critiquing? Thanks... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:18, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

mind putting it in some category pages?[edit]

So that it may be accessed easier? Thieh 02:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What category? Aren't they already catted, and if not, yes, please do so. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Genesis 6:3 malfunctions[edit]

<bible book=Genesis chapter=6 verse1=3/> Gives 3 lines (specifically Genesis 6:1-3) as the following:

Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

<bible book=Genesis chapter=6 verse1=3 verse2=3/> gives 3 lines as well (Same 3)

Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

<bible book=Genesis chapter=6 verse1=2 verse2=3/> Gives 2 lines

Genesis 6:2-3
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Anyone mind looking into it? Thanks [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a problem with how the extension extracts text. Genesis 5:32 contains the string "Genesis 6:3", so it starts extracting text from there, instead of the actual Genesis 6:3 section. I'll try to fix it. --  Nx/talk  17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed, hopefully I didn't break anything else as a result. --  Nx/talk  17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Source Notation[edit]

It's important if we are going to be linking to bible quotes, that who ever imported the quotes cite where they got them. I don't see that anywhere, or if it's out there, I'm missing it.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the KJV? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Comparing our first chapter with this it's pretty obvious it's KJV. But I suppose we should state that somewhere.--Bobbing up 07:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Psalms or Psalm?[edit]

Just curious. Should it be Psalms or Psalm on the Annotated Bible? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be Psalms... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Psalms." One says Psalm when quoting a single psalm from the Book of Psalms. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' lines[edit]

To make things a bit easier, in the New Testament should we put Jesus' words in bold? Knowing that scholars still debate if we have any of the original words of Jesus at all, I think if we have his lines in bold it will make it a much easier read for all. Feredir28 (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bible Quote Generator/Linkage[edit]

This site has MANY places where the Bible is quoted, but either don't link to our own Annotated Bible or they go off site. For that amount of work that was put into this, it's kinda sad it doesn't get used as much. I try to make changes when/where I can, but there are soooo many...

The Bible Quote Generator is very cool, but it doesn't get used. Is there any way we could modify the Bible quote template, so the syntax and the result appear similar to the cquote template, like {{biblequote|Matthew 18:6}}? And for just a simple link, could there be one where I could just type something like {{biblelink|Matthew 18:6}} and it would just link to the the page/section in the Annotated Bible? I don't know how to make those sort of changes yet. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For the bible link, there's already {{bible}}, as in {{bible|1 Samuel|2|12}} producing 1 Samuel 2:12. From my expereience - see the technical support page - the system that produces the quote itself is not amenable to being turned into a template, unfortunetly. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like another Signature Soup moment for me. Sigh. Thanks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Only because nobody could be bothered to mention it on the page. Now, if you had suggested "Why don't we import and annotate the bible this summer?"... Peter Monomorium antarcticum 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We should also start a wiki that talks about RationalWiki on a meta-level! -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

HELP - serious isses, and no idea how this works[edit]

So we are now linking to the "rw annotated bible", which in and of itself isn't a problem, but given that bible quotes often hing on the slightest of changes in translation we need to make sure each page(?) that gets linked to, shows which edition of the bible this is. I don't know how you do that, cause sadly, i'm way technically ignorant. Anyone feel like helping me tackle this?Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You could add "(KJV)" to the bible template... PeterL (at school) 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So what did you want? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, missed your reply. So this is definitely the KJV, and not the American KJV or revised KJV? I'm not sure how to tell where it was imported from. Quotes within the wiki don't need to show that it's KJV, but each page should have the version, year, etc. Can we do that once, with a template? or do we just put it onto each of the Books themselves, individually? It looks, if i understand teh talk page, like someone uploaded a bible, so I assume it's Fair Use? (Sorry for all these questions. i don't see where any documentation is. or maybe I'm just missing it all)--Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it's KJV - you can't argue with kJV-onlyists with an inferior copy now, can you? And it will be out of copyright by now, surely? Or does the English government have indef rights?
The only trouble with putting in the info at the top of each page is that you get linked into the middle of the page, and hence might not see it. But yes, we could/should do it anyway. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
KJV is public domain, yes. Legal for anyone to use. the "American KJV", "Revised KJV" and there's a third, are not. I'll see if i can dig around to fine a line that is different in the three KJVs. And really we only need it one place, where ever that is logical. But I couldn't find it anywhere. We don't need it on every line or anything, but if someone wants to know, they should be able to. :-) Researching teh KJV, if you can help me figure out how to put the info. Just Cut and paste a line at the top?--Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Seth went around a few weeks ago putting "See the main article on this topic: Book of Isaiah" etc. at the top of every page: we could quite easily add the KJV thing to that. The "Annotated Bible" page itself could do with a redesign itself: maybe there instead/aswell? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Then what we should copy/paste on each is : The Rational Wiki Annotated Bible uses the King James Version, which is a public domain text. - or can you think of something better?--Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 04:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The King James Version—accept no substitutes!
You only really need the 'public domain' part on the main page: something like the above would do for the others. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OH, i like that. very RW of you! :-) Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 04:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There are other variants we could use: "The Authorized Version—beware the fowls that creep." etc Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Any comments on this? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not even to complain about the colour choice? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 21:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmph. Oh, well, bold revert discuss, and all that... Peter horas non numero nisi serenas 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bible Generator bug[edit]

links on the Bible Generator reloads the page somehow:

Titus 1:1-2
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

This one does not go to Titus as intended; it goes to this same talk page. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Currently most of the pages lack a table of contents, making navigation difficult. I do not have the knowledge to add a ToC, but if a tech could that would be helpful. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On the annotations[edit]

It is clear that the people who wrote the annotations were raised to believe that the bible is supposed to be believed literally as it's written, and not that it could be interpreted metaphorically as a bunch of stories. Just wanted to say that. Maybe I'm wrong but it's the feeling I'm getting. --Spafky (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be common around here, especially when you're dealing with stuff like New Atheism. I wonder what cult someone like Christopher Hitchens must have grown up in to have such a negative view of Christianity. (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
From the point of view of someone who is not a Christian, the only way to read the Bible would seem to be from the point of view that it says what it says. It is understood that that different Christian denominations and sects argue about whether it should be read literally, metaphorically, mystically or whatever. This is an internal argument for those Christian groups.
But it is not down to non-Christians to decide which of these many conflicting Christian views are "correct". (The same could be said about non-Muslims and the Quran.)
We just have the words which the various books use. Obviously this will often not mesh with the views of Christians who think that their God has placed some deeper or hidden meaning in the words.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


I might want to do something similar to the Annotated Qur'an with the number of chapters and split it between Old and New Testaments. Sound good? I'm kinda scared that I'm going to mess up the formatting of this page. Patty Pat 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)