Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 8 December 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronology of the Bible article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronology of the Bible article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Overview Table Error

Birth of Abraham Genesis 21:5 is actually the birth of Isaac.

Tower of Babel not destroyed.

In the article -Abraham to United Monarchy- in the table it might be changed from referencing 'the tower destroyed' to 'language confounded in Babel' because no scripture supports that the tower or city was destroyed.

Ref. Kchlenberger - Hebrew/English Interlinear

Genesis 11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they stopped building the city. There is no mention of destruction of either the tower or the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.146.20 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

PLEASE NOTE - the nominator has requested that the speedy deletion be cancelled. Further debate is not required--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because the wrong criteria was accidentally selected. Will re-submit...Upon closer consideration, it is the Overview section that presents the POV information (as indicated below). The years given in the table are not supported by the source attributed to the table. (This has since been fixed) The information previously attributed to Insight (refs 2, 3, 4) represented the views of a minor religious group that does not represent consensus with other religious groups or with any secular sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The Overview section previously presented a POV fork that presents the views of a minor religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), which did not present uncontested views of chronology as presented in the Bible, but rather, it consisted of the biblical interpretations held by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Overview

I have again restored the years per the cited source as clearly indicated for the table. Do not change the years in the table unless you are also providing an alternative source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the years provided are not 'my arithmetic', nor am I asserting that the years stated are necessarily correct. They are the years given by the citation provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected it again. The source you used is only a reliable source for the fact that there is a view to that effect. Since a simple count of the years in the Masoretic text gives Abraham's birth 1948 years after Adam's, the 1945 would require explanation. As would the 215 and 215 splitting of 430 years.

As I said, there are numerous understandings of the biblical chronology, even including the Wenham numerology thing, which is definition a WP:FRINGE theory. I think this article might be more encyclopedic if it were to review some of the major views on the biblical chronology, rather than just present one of them as fact. Are you willing to stop reverting and work on that? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My interest in this article is minimal, and was initially only to remove pro-JW fringe views. However, if you want to make other corrections, provide a source. That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, what you called 'the source I used' was not added by me at all. It was simply the source to which the table was originally attributed before the article was hi-jacked by a JW apologist. Feel free to make any other corrections as you see fit. I will only be watching this article for edits that are blatantly fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have again restored the correct information that User: Jeffro77 keeps deleting rather than discussing in talk per his own advice. I personally find it inconceivable that Jeffro 77 would refer to the beliefs held by over 7 million people as being "fringe views" as I highly doubt he could find 1/4 as many people who claim to hold the view of the material he is presenting as being correct. Furthermore, I find Jeffro 77's insistence on secular support for the material presented as being somewhat strange, since this is a page on BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and not a page on secular interpretation of bible chronology. That being the case, secular interpretation is irrelevant, as biblical chronology is all that is important here. 184.37.2.116 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, so hopefully you'll see me as a neutral editor, although in the interest of full disclosure I do know Jeffro77 through Misplaced Pages as I also edit JW pages. First off, I recently reverted the last edit on account of too many "could be's" as stated in my revert summary, along with no source. Secondly, 7 million of approx. 6 billion is, about .1% I believe? That would certainly count as fringe. Thirdly, the Bible can be interpreted in SOOOO many different ways, especially depending on which Bible you use (which are you using by the way? NWT? NIV? NIT? KJV? NKJV? Jerusalem? ASV? TLB?) which means that unless you're reading the oldest Greek manuscripts we have to date, secular interpretation is very important. Finally, you seem to be the one who is taking things too far by changing vast amounts of information without talking. Jeffro77 is simply keeping the status quo that has existed here using sources. And because this is Misplaced Pages, secular, NPOV sources are needed, not just someones interpretation. If you can provide neutral, secular sources to back up your claims, as well as using less ambiguous language than "would seem to be, is most likely, appears to be" then do so and a full, honest, respectful discussion can take place. Vyselink (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Vyselink Apparently you do have a "dog in this fight". You claim there is no source provided, which is blatantly false. Yet the source you provide is fictitious. Secondly, to compare the amount of those in agreement with the dates provided by the source I used against the planets population as a whole is deceiving at best, since there are few so called "christian" groups that have a consensus in their beliefs, and of those that do, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the larger groups, Even the Catholic's, who make up by far the largest group of those professing to be christian, have a variety of beliefs depending upon locale and sect of the denomination. Most protestant groups who identify themselves as "christian" are smaller in active membership than are Jehovah's Witnesses, who have an active membership of over 7 million. Therefore, in a relative sense, the opinion of those 7 million is considerably larger than the .1% to which you haphazardly give it credit. Thirdly, if you simply look under Misplaced Pages's own page regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will find at the bottom of the page, many scholars who give the translation support as being one of the better available, and you will also note that of those that take objection, most commonly, their main objection appears to be with regard to the inclusion of Jehovah's name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which has little or no bearing on the subject at hand, so again your point about which bible to use is irrelevant. Fourth, I think I have already covered the issue of secular sources, but in case you missed it, here it is again just for you. This is a page on "BIBLE" chronology, not "secular interpretation of bible chronology". Therefore, not only are secular sources unnecessary, but they are beyond the scope of the material in consideration, and therefore MUST be excluded as they do not fit into the discussion. If you wish to have a page on "secular interpretation of bible chronology" then you should create one, you are free to do so with out any interference from me. But you need to keep your ideas and your edits within the scope of the page under consideration. And lastly, I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a "neutral, secular source" when it comes to discussing the bible. Lastly, your claim to the use of "ambiguous language" is highly exaggerated to say the least, and the chart, which was sourced to "Insight on the Scriptures" contained none of that language, therefore you are again, using fiction to justify your actions in reverting the material 74.232.63.35 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab Obviously, you guys have yourselves a nice little tight nit group of anti-Jehovah's Witnesses going here, You, by your own page are clearly an apostate, so I realize there will be no reasoning with your closed mind. I haven't violated Misplaced Pages's rules...not as yet. But your friends have and by your involvement with them, you are continuing the process. The dates and the chart submitted can be supported by reference material, which I provided, and by the bible, which the page declares itself to be a chronology of. What your friends keep reverting to cannot be supported by a single thing other than fictitious source material that is improperly and/or incorrectly sited. I have offered to discuss this page in talk, none of your friends have taken me up on this offer, they simply revert to poor, incomplete and inaccurate information, which I am surprised to learn that Misplaced Pages would prefer over a complete and accurate Chronology of the bible. But then again, why should I be surprised that people would prefer to "adopt teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled"

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles