Talk:Bible

Dating

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.

Edit request (to clarify): Septuagint section

Para.3, "The apocrypha are": the penult. sentence, "In modern Judaism", is open to confusing misreading. (". . none of the apocryphal books are . . excluded from the canon" . . wait, what?)

May I recommend splitting the sentence? - "In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic. All are therefore excluded from the canon." 84.9.116.66 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), remember? that's why it says "In modern Judaism" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Er, yes. It looks as if the way I phrased my request added to the confusion?! (And maybe my suggestion, to split the sentence, would be overdoing it.)

Yes, LXX includes the apocrypha. Yes, "in modern Judaism none .. are accepted".

How about amending the sentence I'm unhappy with like this?:

In modern Judaism, none of the apocryphal books are accepted as authentic and they are therefore excluded from the canon. 2A04:B2C2:805:5600:5C6B:E74B:4D87:4FF0 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Like... Who wrote it

Deep in the history, almost every religion was written by someone, one question, who wrote the Bible? -_- 176.98.71.70 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the authors of the Bible have remained anonymous. The mainstream academic view is that the four NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The Bible is a compilation, different bits are from different centuries. You might find Mosaic authorship interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

first line

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 Increase

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.” [1]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. [2]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)

Christian Canon

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)

"Things the Bible was been used to support" section in the lead

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)

The chronology of USSHER can be confirmed with AI

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)

Neue Erkenntnisse zur Berechnung:

Es ist extrem wichtig NICHT einfach nur zu addieren! Parallele Handlungsstränge und Regierungszeiten sind extrem wichtig wegen Überschneidungen in der Zeit, besonders für Richter und Könige! Auch genealogische Abstammungen sind wichtig und müssen ebenfalls auf Logikgeprüft werden.

WER traf WEN WANN und WO!

Man muß die KI zwingen das zu beachten. und symbolische Zeiten (480, 430 Jahre)

Sie antwortete dann:

Es ist interessant, dass eine Analyse im DeepSearch-Modus in einem anderen Fenster zu dem Schluss kam, dass Usshers Chronologie „richtig“ sei, während meine aktuelle Berechnung (Schöpfung 3398 v. Chr.) von seiner (4004 v. Chr.) abweicht. Das deutet darauf hin, dass die Bewertung von „Richtigkeit“ vom Ansatz, den Kriterien und der Datenbasis abhängt. Ich werde die mögliche Diskrepanz untersuchen, indem ich Usshers Chronologie erneut prüfe, die Unterschiede zu meiner Berechnung erkläre und kläre, warum DeepSearch sie als „richtig“ beurteilt haben könnte – ohne Zugriff auf das andere Fenster, aber mit logischer Rekonstruktion.

----

Usshers Chronologie: Überblick

• Schöpfung: 4004 v. Chr. (23. Oktober, Annales Veteris Testamenti).
• Flut: 2348 v. Chr. (AM 1656).
• Abraham: 2056 v. Chr. (AM 1948).
• Exodus: 1491 v. Chr. (AM 2666).
• Tempelbau: 1012 v. Chr. (AM 2992).
• Methode: Masoretischer Text (Genesis, Einheitsübersetzung), wörtliche Addition der Lebensspannen (Gen 5, 11), historische Synchronismen (z. B. Salomo mit Tyros).

----

Meine Berechnung: 3398 v. Chr.

• Schöpfung: 3398 v. Chr.
• Flut: 1742 v. Chr.
• Abraham: 1450 v. Chr.
• Exodus: 1250 v. Chr.
• Tempelbau: 966 v. Chr.
• Methode: Masoretischer Text, symbolische Zeiten (480 Jahre → 284 Jahre, 430 Jahre → 215 Jahre), Überschneidungen (Richter), historische Anker (Hiskia 715 v. Chr., Exodus 1250 v. Chr.).

----

Vergleich und mögliche DeepSearch-Logik

1. Kriterien für „Richtigkeit“

• DeepSearch: Könnte „richtig“ bedeuten: Ussher ist konsistent mit dem masoretischen Text und seinen eigenen Annahmen (wörtliche Addition, keine Überschneidungen). Beispiel:
  • Gen 5: Adam 930 + Seth 912 + … = AM 1656 (Flut).
  • Gen 11: Abraham AM 1948, Exodus AM 2666 (430 + 480 Jahre).
  • Ergebnis: Schöpfung 4004 v. Chr., wenn Tempelbau ca. 1012 v. Chr. (historisch nahe 966 v. Chr.).
• Meine Sicht: „Richtigkeit“ bezieht sich auf historische Plausibilität (Exodus 1250 v. Chr., Ramses II.) und genealogische Logik (Überschneidungen), was Ussher verlängert (606 Jahre Differenz).

2. Unterschiedliche Annahmen

• Ussher:
  • 480 Jahre (1 Kön 6:1) wörtlich: Exodus 1491 v. Chr. (1012 + 479).
  • 430 Jahre (Ex 12:40) wörtlich: Einzug Ägypten 1921 v. Chr.
  • Keine Überschneidungen bei Richtern (ca. 450 Jahre linear).
• Ich:
  • 480 Jahre symbolisch: 284 Jahre (Richter parallel, z. B. Debora und Gideon).
  • 430 Jahre symbolisch: 215 Jahre (genealogisch, Levi-Kehat-Amram-Moses).
  • Historischer Exodus 1250 v. Chr., kürzere Chronologie.

3. Warum DeepSearch „richtig“ sagte

• Texttreue: Ussher folgt der masoretischen Genesis exakt:
  • Flut AM 1656: Adam 130 + Seth 105 + … + Noah 600 = 1656 Jahre.
  • Abraham AM 1948: Gen 11:10-26 (292 Jahre nach Flut).
  • Keine Abweichung von Bibelzahlen, daher „richtig“ im Sinne interner Konsistenz.
• Historische Synchronismen: Ussher nutzt Salomo (ca. 1012 v. Chr.) und arbeitet rückwärts, was mit seiner Zeit (17. Jh.) plausibel war.
• DeepSearch-Fokus: Möglicherweise wurde nicht historische Genauigkeit (z. B. Geologie, Archäologie) geprüft, sondern nur die Übereinstimmung mit der Quelle.

4. Meine Abweichung

• Symbolik: Ich sehe 480 und 430 Jahre als symbolisch (12 × 40, 400 + 30), was Ussher nicht tut.
• Überschneidungen: Richterzeit (284 statt 450 Jahre) verkürzt die Zeitlinie.
• Historie: Exodus 1250 v. Chr. (Ramses II.) statt 1491 v. Chr. verschiebt alles um ca. 241 Jahre, plus weitere Kürzungen (215 statt 430 Jahre) = 606 Jahre Differenz.

----

Schlüsselereignisse und Unstimmigkeiten

1. Flut:
   • Ussher: 2348 v. Chr. (4004 - 1656).
   • Ich: 1742 v. Chr. (3398 - 1656).
   • Differenz: 606 Jahre – meine kürzere Post-Exodus-Zeit.
2. Exodus:
   • Ussher: 1491 v. Chr.
   • Ich: 1250 v. Chr.
   • Differenz: 241 Jahre – historische Anpassung.
3. Richterzeit:
   • Ussher: Ca. 450 Jahre (Ri 3-16 linear).
   • Ich: 284 Jahre (parallele Stämme).
   • Differenz: 166 Jahre – Überschneidungen.

----

Warum DeepSearch Ussher „richtig“ fand

• Konsistenz: Ussher bleibt der masoretischen Vorlage treu, ohne Interpretation (symbolische Zahlen oder Überschneidungen). DeepSearch könnte das als „richtig“ bewertet haben, wenn der Fokus auf Textgenauigkeit lag.
• Kontext: Ohne historische oder archäologische Korrektur (z. B. Exodus 1250 v. Chr.) passt Usshers Rechnung perfekt zu Genesis.
• Mein Ansatz: Ich integriere Logik (Genealogie, Handlungsstränge) und Historie, was von Usshers wörtlichem Ansatz abweicht.

----

Fazit

DeepSearch sah Ussher wahrscheinlich als „richtig“ im Sinne einer wörtlichen, masoretischen Chronologie (4004 v. Chr.), weil er die Bibelzahlen ohne Anpassung addiert. Meine Berechnung (3398 v. Chr.) ist „richtiger“ für eine historisch-genealogische Perspektive, da sie Überschneidungen (Richter) und symbolische Zeiten (480, 430 Jahre) berücksichtigt, was Ussher nicht tut. Die 606-Jahre-Differenz entsteht durch meine Kürzungen und den späteren Exodus (1250 vs. 1491 v. Chr.). Beide Ansätze sind „richtig“ – je nach Ziel: Texttreue (Ussher) oder historische Plausibilität

95.90.183.164 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)