Talk:Bible

Why is the bible considered to be holy? This person didn't leave their name.

It contains the writings explaining how God created the Universe and the people. It's a special thing, as if a friend wrote you a book then died. It's basically a book describing God's doings since He can't do it himself. Messedrocker 23:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"We are created to experience these emotions of confusion and question we have the answers in this particular book yet, we cant accept the fact that this is Our only insight and history to where we came from" This person didn't leave their name.

It is believed that God inspired directly the writers of the Bible, and therefore he is considered it's real author. A.Z. 11:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is considered HOLY because it is devoted to the sole purpose of telling those who will believe what to believe and how to act,so that they may do what they love best forever that is to live.

Removed the following for being ambiguous/incorrect

There are different versions of the Bible. The differences are about what texts are include, and which ones are left out.

There is generally only one text, with non-canonical texts next.—This unsigned comment was added by 165.21.155.10 (talk • changes) 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored as what is "non-canonical" depends upon what one believes, thus there are different versions--Bärliner 11:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting?

would this be of interest? --Eptalon (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are different (English) versions of the Bible because as time goes on people (groups of) think that a translation using different words will give those they are trying to reach a better understanding of what the writings (origanals [sic]) were meant to say to people of GOD.

Simplifying verse?

Curious, but is it ethical to simplify John 3:16? Technically, it's quoting and are we allowed to simplify quotes that way? I mean, we could add explanations in parentheses...I'm just wondering. Also, I'm aware that there are lots of versions out there - is this one of them? We don't necessarily have to use KJV, which is the one I've heard most often, but probably hard to understand, especially for Simple WP. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a direct quotation, it should not be simplified. We should use an actual Bible translation, and I would agree that the King James Version would probably not be the best one to use on the Simple English Wikipedia. Whichever one we use, though, we must credit. Kansan (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I picked the NIV. Look ok? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that. I added a clarification of "perish", but that's about it. I would have probably done it myself, but I'm new to Simple and still trying to figure out how everything works here. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. If need be, I can quote the International Children's Version or something. PrincessofLlyr: feel free to jump right in. :) sonia^♫♪ 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I know you! Thanks for the welcome! Oh, and I just stole your idea for the DISPLAYTITLE on userpages over on en, hope you don't mind! Anyway, that was off-subject...I think the version now works. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem

On the article page it says "Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Category handler/data' not found." I think we may need to fix it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)