Talk:Torah

The theory of a female writer as compiler is an interesting topic, but it probably needs to be re-written, cause it's not a generally accepted theory. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 23:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It lacks quotes, links, etc. I find it funny that Zena quotes Bloom here (it's ad hominem, but he ain't exactly Fem-friendly), and Rand, as in Ayn, on her talk page. WfG, if it's trash, just vape it, like I do when I see clear trash. Zena is just a poop-troll. ħuman 00:03, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

General question about "guide to"

As I've been editing, I've wondered at our titles "guide to this" and "guide to that" related to bible books. Can we change them to simply "Gospel of This" or "chronicles that"? Or is there a reason they were originally written as "guides" and not just "The book of Moses". Dumb place to put this question, but Pi's edits made me think of it.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:04, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I though they were suppose to be a study guide like thing. I have no idea really. - User $\pi$ 00:06, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I thought so too, cept that didn't really fit into RatWiki once I got more familiar with RW, and... I don't know... I never felt like they guided anyone through anything. especially the ones with really good humor. :-)--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:09, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

They were sort of our "snarky" take on saying what the books contained, I think. I'd have no problem if they were just called by their titles, or if necessary, "Joshua (Bible book)" - or anything simpler. Makes linking easier... anyway, WfG, you might want to wait until Zena finishes her pissy fit with us and takes her ball home again before trying to improve the bible guide mess. ħuman 00:16, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I leave for France in 2 days. I assure you, other than to say "hey, all, tried this bar in Edinburgh so cheers mates", i won't be thinking of RW at all for 3 weeks. ;-)--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:19, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Good for you! Please to enjoy the whine and cheese for me and report! Send us postcards! Have a great time! ħuman 00:21, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

fun:chocolate is all you need to know. Patrick Roger's chocolates.

Book of J

Any reason we have the Book of J highlighted like this? It's not really one of the more academic theories, though it's quite interesting.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea why, but if we could get some in-line sources, I see no reason to completely unleash it. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we shoudln't make a side comment about it, but givien how little we have, it's givie a pretty serious highlight to a quack author. ;-) --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Devarim

"Dvarim" (דברים) in Hebrew is actually "stuff". Or, even in relation to the word "diburim"(דיבורים), that would be "speeches", or "talks" - but not "words" (that would be "millim" - מילים) 84.228.22.93 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Torah versus the Pentateuch

It seems like under the above-named section there should be a bullet list or paragraphs containing specific examples, or if they are already in another article a link to that article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 198.151.179.5 / talk}

The Torah versus the Pentateuch

I agree with the above user on this issue, but the claim in the first place isn't even true. This section 1) Isn't needed at all, 2) Is inaccurate, as Hellenistic Jews and other Jews throughout history have used the term "Pentateuch" as it's simply the Greek term (as opposed to the Hebrew word "Torah"), and 3) While you can argue about Christian revisionism of the Hebrew texts, because of the last point, it doesn't make any logical sense to make such a claim here.

Bball12345 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)bball12344