The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Bible. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Bible at the Reference desk.
Bible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Bible is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
Bible has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 5 June 2023 for a period of one week. The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).Articles for improvementWikipedia:Articles for improvementTemplate:Former AFIArticles for improvement articles
Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways."
to: "Believers in the Bible consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways." Nathan Pintos (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline. I do not support this change and the reason is within the sentence itself: because it is seen in different ways. Everyone does not consider it divinely inspired even if they consider themselves "believers". Removing "generally" implies a universal agreement that does not exist.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. 👍 Sheanobeano (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy Bible is the proper title. Devout religious and spiritual groups believe it is the inspired words of God Himself. 96.18.209.11 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been discussed multiple times - most recently [[1]]. Consensus is that it should not be changed because, as a secular institute, WP does not make judgment calls on religious scriptures. See for example WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RNPOV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Devout religious and spiritual groups believe" Their bigotry is of no interest to us. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, and I am not accusing the previous editor of this in any way, shape or form. But I will caution that we as editors in our responses to any religious topic must also be careful to avoid bigotry. It is a balancing act that comes with experience, and requires all of us to learn not to allow our personal experiences or biases to color our editing - positively or negatively. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I carry you with me and quote you everywhere I go? I have a short essay on neutralizing bias on my user page that starts with "everyone is biased". Not everyone seems willing or able to see that. I am genuinely pleased to run across someone else who does. Thank you. Perhaps you would allow me to add this quote to my essay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would sincerely be honored! Thank you. And how very true: it's impossible for any of us to avoid bias...even the act of trying to avoid it can inadvertently introduce it. But, so long as we are cognizant of that and trying, they can contribute constructively :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jtrevor99 you are now on my user page where I list 6 steps for neutralizing bias:
Recognize the problem. It helps to become aware it isn't just you. It also helps to become aware it is you. It's everyone.
Learn to recognize when an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies. They are biased.
Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence. Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
Create consistency by using the same standard for all. Don't cut an author you like slack that you would not give to one you don't like. That too is bias.
Consensus hinders bias. Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it.
Most importantly, Be wary of overconfidence. "The more certain you are about an opinion, the more likely you are to employ confirmation bias... Sometimes the best time to expose yourself to opposing views is when you are most certain you already have all the information you need". [2]
And then, there you are. Thank you for being an example of what's best on WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course everyone is biased. That is a given. The day that nobody is biased anymore would be the day there are 0 edits on wikipedia. Latin Beau 06:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Latin Beau you are so right, but it isn't uncommon for it to be a very difficult thing to see in one's self. We think what we think because we think it's right - if we weren't right, we would think something else! I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it." Not a good advice on Wikipedia. Quite frequently, good-faith editors mess up an article's structure and sources. The only option is to revert the changes and talk to them. Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps should be amended to state "...based on content" or something of that nature. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dimadick It's the reason for reverting that differentiates those, but perhaps you're right and that should be clarified. "Never revert an otherwise well sourced, good faith, valid edit just because it is contrary to your personal views". That's WP policy and should be upheld.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be called "Holy Bible." Respect Christians. Sheanobeano (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Respect Christians." Respect is earned, and I doubt they have earned it. Dimadick (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An editor recently copied a large section of New Testament apocrypha (with some edits) to this article. I question whether that is helpful: not just because of the duplication, but because the article is already bordering on being too long, and because (in my opinion) a "Bible" article ought to be limited to content which was, or is, part of at least one major extant group's Bible. Additionally, it was added under "Content and Themes" which appears incorrect, since - with a couple small exceptions - none of the mentioned works are or were ever considered part of any canon. Since New Testament apocrypha is also already linked to in the New Testament history section, and since this section already adequately summarizes NT apocryphal history, I suggest that the newly added section should be scrapped entirely, saving for mention of books such as 3 Corinthians or 1/2 Clement (which are included in some Bibles) in the Canon variations section. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with (mostly) removal since it's not in what I commonly understand as "Bible" though it's certainly bible adjacent. Bible#New_Testament_2 links to New Testament apocrypha and has some content on it, that seems WP:PROPORTIONate for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's incredible that nothing has been done about it, this section keeps large proportions of the main article "New Testament apocrypha", almost half of this article is here.Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was waiting on additional people to reply, and haven’t had enough time to edit it back out. You are welcome to. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
this entire paragraph is a lie and should be deleted. "New Testament books already had considerable authority in the late first and early second centuries.[164] Even in its formative period, most of the books of the NT that were seen as scripture were already agreed upon. Linguistics scholar Stanley E. Porter says "evidence from the apocryphal non-Gospel literature is the same as that for the apocryphal Gospels – in other words, that the text of the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries".[165] By the time the fourth century Fathers were approving the "canon", they were doing little more than codifying what was already universally accepted.[166]" Jeffohms (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing drastic seems to have happened to the article near those dates, my guess would be that Google stopped offering Wikipedia as the top result. As to why Google stopped doing so only Google would know. the drop actually happened in November, you can see this if narrow the date range. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paleo-Hebrew wrongly identified as a cuneiform language.[edit]
A paragraph in the "Development and history" section reads: "The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period."
I'm no expert in the matter but as soon as I read this I thought this is wrong. I checked the Wikipedia article on paleo-Hebrew and it does not mention cuneiform nor pictographs. 92.41.50.173 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Diverse religious communities have compiled religious texts into various official collections. The earliest known collection consisted of the initial five books of the Bible. This information highlights the historical significance of religious texts as a means of preserving cultural and spiritual beliefs for future generations. Yumyam (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)