Talk:Chapters and verses of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Insert non-formatted text here
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Chapters and verses of the Bible as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia. |
I have attempted to make the Pitfalls section sound less like a street preacher on his soapbox and more like a neutral description of the issue. It's not enough, but if you saw the previous version, then I hope you'll agree that it's a start. If someone would like to take on the next stage of this editing job, I'd appreciate it. (Being bold, as the author notes below, is a Wikipedia value, but being biased or preachy is not. Please use calm facts, and cite your sources, instead of dumping your polemical rantings here.)
"Chapters came about after the Bible had been divided into verses. Chapters were added by Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro between 1244 and 1248 A.D. He did this when he was preparing a concordance of the Bible."
"The modern chapter divisions came about through Stephen Langton, a professor at the University of Paris and afterwards an Archbishop of Canterbury. He put the modern divisions into place around 1227 A.D. Since the Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 this pattern has been followed."
These two paragraphs seems a bit incoherent.
- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Matt 20:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Verification of verses, etc.
I removed the following line from the first paragraph, on the basis that it should be assumed that we've checked our facts: "A computerized check plus manual verifying have shown these values to be correct." It seems weird to have that in there, but if there's a good reason I won't object to it being put back in. Seqsea (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
a) There are a number of sources that claim that there are 31 173 verses in the Protestant Bible. I _think_ that either the talk page, or the main article should explain the discrepency. [Half the reason I am on this page, is to find out how people get 31 173 verses.]
b) Versification Schemes are the bane of Computer Bible Study Programmers. There are number of different v11n schemes. AFAIK, none of them have 31 173 verses. It might be useful to list the different v11n schemes, and how they differ. Or point to an external site that has that information. joanthon
[edit] Worldwide view
The article repeatedly cites English scholars and translators. Do other translations of the Bible use chapters and verses at all? Do they use completely different systems of versification? Or did everybody adopt the English system? Fishal 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, but please note that this is the English Wikipedia. In my understanding, "worldwide view" means that the article should not be limited to just one country (e.g. the UK or Australia) while ignoring other countries. On an article concerning literature in the English Wikipedia, giving precedence to English-language views is entirely appropriate. Thus, I'm removing the warning notice.
- However, I do agree with you that we should add perspectives from other languages, all the same, as soon as we can get them. So far, there are Suomi and Hebrew versions of this article. I can read a little bit of Biblical Hebrew, but not modern Hebrew, so unfortunately I can't benefit from their featured article to make improvements here. ~ Chitu 12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you wnat the discussion of Chapters and Verese to be limited to the protestant Bible, or include the Bible as used/defined by the different branches of Christianity? How fast will the article be vandalized/edited/deleted, if books like 3 Corinthians, or 2 Clement are included/discussed in the main text?
1 Enoch is more likely to make the article volatile. Clinkophonist 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1 Thes. 5:17 changed to 1 Thes. 5:16
According to the Textus Receptus and the 21st edition of Nestle's Greek text, verse 16 is shorter.
[edit] Number of Books for the Orthodox
According to the Wikipedia article on the Old Testament, the Orthodox have more books of the Bible than the Catholics. According to the list on the right, the Eastern Orthodox have 4 more books than the Roman Catholics. The Russian Orthodox have one more book than the Eastern Orthodox because of 2 (or 4) Esdras, and the Oriental Orthodox have 2 more than the Russian Orthodox because of Jubilees and Enoch. All of these mean that the Eastern Orthodox have 77 books, the Russian Orthodox 78, and the Oriental Orthodox 80. (The figures for all of the Orthodox may be one less than real, though, because that list on the aforementioned article says that the Letter of Jeremiah is considered as part of Baruch in Roman Catholic Tradition. Does this mean that it is an extra book in the Orthodox traditions?)
I'm removing the statement that the Eastern Orthodox have 73 books in their canon for now. I'll add the above figures or their corrections in a few days or as soon as I find out where the Letter of Jeremiah is placed in the Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox canons. Hairouna 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comprehension
Two problems with this section. One, the example of "There is no God" isn't as relevant as it could be (also, I'm not aware that it's "oft-quoted"). It would be better to give an example of a verse that, without context, is easily misinterpreted, or just not to bother with an example. Two, the last sentence:
"However, when the Bible was written, it was meant to be deeply pondered, sequentially studied, and fully considered."
A little preachy and unnecessary. FAL 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
