Talk:Bible
Format
Let me know what you all think of the format I used on this page. I was trying to get it to look a bit more organized. Cpark 18:08, 5 Feb 2005 (PST)
- The new format looks good. Graham
Picture
Don't be shy about changing the pictures I put on the page. If you can find something better, feel free to change it. --Mustaphile 04:14, 9 May 2005 (PDT)
Apocrypha naming convention
The Roman Catholic term for the books it retains is "dueterocanonical", not apocrypha. The former term is more appropriate because (1) it is the terminology used by the Church and (2) apocrypha has negative connotations as it relates to the debate between the Hebrew and Greek traditions. V/r AmericanCatholic
Sub-topics
I think it would be good to simplify the sub-topics in the contents box on the side. I'm thinking that these might be some good sub-topics
- Books of the Bible (this would include the formation of the canon) - New Testament, Old Testament
- Translating the Bible (this would include information about Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and looking at the history of translations and modern translations and distributing the Bible throughout the world and to different cultures and langauges)
- Interpreting the Bible (this would include exegesis, hermeneutics and various views of the Bible including Historical accuracy of the Bible, Biblical innerancy and infallibility, sola scriptura etc.)
- Timeline of Biblical History, Characters of the Bible, Biblical Places Index
- Bible Commentary Index, Bible Terms Index, Bible Dictionaries Index
- Ancient Languages Index, Ancient Texts Index - Apocrypha
What do others think? What would you have as the main sub-topics? --Graham grove 14:38, 21 August 2008 (PDT)
- Well, since no one has strong opinions, I've started re-arranging. --Graham grove 08:02, 30 August 2008 (PDT)
