The fact that this article lists first the old testament, then the new testament and then goes on with the headline "apocrypha" is tremendously funny. It's a gret in-joke! Ulrik 13:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe we should change that. It's Trek apocrypha, not references to maccabees or something. --Bp 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't "sins of the father" from the bible? I've tried looking this up but I know next to nothing about bible organisation and versions, so that didn't work out. In any case, if it is then there's another bible quote in I Hate You of all places. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:59, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
Article Expansion Edit
This article speaks heavily on the Old and New Testament bibles, but doesn't really put a lot of emphasis on other religions' bibles. I understand that the Old and New Testaments are the most heavily spoken on and quoted in the Trek universe, but I think at least a little recognition of other religions' bibles is important to the article.
However, political correctness aside, this article defines a bible as "a collection of ancient Earth writings," when many references are made to alien bibles. Surak's teachings for the Vulcans, Kahless's stories were referred to as being in a form of biblical written text, and of course the tremendous amount of Bajoran writings referenced a compiled bible of the Prophets on multiple occasions. I know I am technically not a "member" of MA, but I hope you put my thoughts in consideration. (184.108.40.206 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- dude... not all dogmas are bibles
- I think Mr. 220.127.116.11 has a point here. The only possible alien "bible" I can think of is in "The Omega Glory", however I cannot find any bible mention in the transcript (someone needs to watch the episode, good luck). The "Evil One" (who needs a page) appears in this "bible," which is referenced on a couple MA pages (Devil and File:Devil painting.jpg). If the book is titled "The Bible" or something related, then this page needs to redirect/disambiguate from it. I will suggest Holy Bible (if not already name of Omegan Bible). Also any references to "This is the Klingons bible" or whatever should also be included somewhere.--Tim Thomason 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- While I see 18.104.22.168's reasoning, aside from The Omegan tome, to refer to writings from other species as Bibles would be rather Earth-centric, even Christian-centric. The Vulcans have the Kir'Shara (okay, Trip referred to it as a "Vulcan Bible" once), the Klingons have the Paq'batlh, the Ferengi have the Rules of Acquisition, the Bajorans have their prophecies. This reminds me of Azetbur's line, "If you could hear yourselves - "Inalienable human rights..."" -- StAkAr Karnak 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm trying not to be Earth-centric (I'm trying to be Humanoid-centric, wait...). There are two instances of the word "bible" being used to represent a different cultures religious book (with one perhaps erroneously). It's obvious that only Humans use the English word "Bible," but in the time of Trek the word may have evolved to mean more than the Christian Bible. It actually refers to at least 3 today: the Holy Bible, the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible (in English), and the Satanic Bible (that's relatively new, but still). The Kir'Shara and the Omega IV bible were referenced as "Bibles" along with the Holy Bible (referred to: as "Bible" in "Court Martial" [seen], "Far Beyond the Stars", and maybe others [Star Trek VI?]; as "Holy Bible" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [seen], "Far Beyond the Stars" [seen]]; as "Gutenberg Bible" [technically different] in "Requiem for Methuselah" [seen, I think], "A Matter of Time") so it seems... what's the word?... oh, yeah... reasonable to make a page on overall bibles, in fact I started one "here". If it's too bad, I have the awesome power of deleting it myself.--Tim Thomason 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Bible refers to either the Tanakh, or the Tanakh along with the New Testament. Some people also use it to mean any authoritative book. To do so, to me at least, sounds like a Christian-centric POV. When Trip called the Kir'Shara a "Vulcan Bible", it didn't seem like he was familliar with it at all, and was speaking from his own POV. How would it sound if he were from the Middle East and said "Vulcan Qur'an"? The question might be what POV Memory Alpha is written from. If it is written by an objective historian, it wouldn't take the POV of Earth, the UFP, or any other organization.
- I'd argue that expanding the article to cover other 'holy books' would show bias. If the purpose would be to give equal airtime to other species' authoritative texts, this could be done by linking to a list or category, or maybe with a bottom-of-the-page template. -- StAkAr Karnak 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Works for me. Although the Paq'batlh is clearly a Kir'Shara. Jaf 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
- (Re: StAkAr) I don't condone expanding the article to cover other "holy books." I condone changing the article to cover other "bibles" (as referenced in Star Trek). Trip is probably not the best to cover Vulcan history and philosophy (Archer would!), but it has to be noted somewhere. Yes, in Judeo-Christianity the word "bible" is used to refer to the Tanakh + maybe New Testament + maybe whatever apocrypha that sect likes. Of course other religions today have created their own religious "bible" (most notably modern-day Satanism), but it is purely based on the Judeo-Christian model.
- Anyhoo, I hate religious talk. To settle my own arguement, I moved the temp page to Bible (disambiguation), and think a link on the top of this "bible" (which I may or may not have placed) would be appropriate. Now can I write about the Omegan Bible?--Tim Thomason 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The final external link is as such: Online Bible at Bible.com" - This is some kind of nonprofit focused on proselytism offering the Bible tightly integrated with tools to that end, and its bloated with things like terms of service and promotions for their app and sidebars full of editorial stuff and the need to log in for most stuff on the site. I'd feel different if the Bible was a copyrighted work and this was the site of the publisher, but it's been in the public domain for literal ages for God's sake, can we really not do better? There must be a hundred better sites offering the bible online. Or heck, even linking to a basic free copy like Project Gutenberg probably offers seems better then this. Anyone know of a good alternative? -- Capricorn (talk) 19:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
From Talk:Genesis (Bible) Edit
- David (Bible) has a page, despite the fact that he's mentioned as a metaphor only, not, say, an alias of Flint. Would that justify this page or wind up deleting "David" and Goliath too? --LauraCC (talk) 14:45, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
David and Goliath were fictional characters referenced, even if only as a metaphor. The book of Genesis is a portion of the Bible, thus... the logic behind merging it into "Bible" proper... -- sulfur (talk) 15:07, October 16, 2015 (UTC)