Talk:Angel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Bruce M. Tindall |
imported>Joshua Zambrano No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::Now I understand, Luuuuke! [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | :::Now I understand, Luuuuke! [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:You're right, it will need to integrate other references at some point. Actually, what might be a good step would be creating a subpage for Angels solely as mentioned in the Bible, maybe a page called Angels "(Biblical)", and then provide only a shortened summation on this page of the Biblical usage, with a link to the subpage. I think right now I will 'edit boldly' and move the Biblical material to a subpage, and then work on a concise summary of angels as mentioned in the Bible. By all means, let me hear your thoughts on whether this is the best way to go about this, and what your thoughts are on how the page('s) structure should be idealized. --[[User:Joshua Zambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:05, 10 March 2011
Additional references
Somewhere here, but not at hand, are Jung's Man and His Symbols, as well as various works by Joseph Campbell. The article should not address only Biblical references. Indeed, are there different interpretations in different translations? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly the article needs to draw on scholarly sources as it expands, but I don't quite understand why there should be a ban on any mention of passages from the Bible (or the Qur'an, or various non-scriptural texts from various religions, all of which contain references to angels). Those texts are the only (or at least the major) source of evidence of what ancient peoples believed about angels. It seems to be analogous to an article on the U.S. system of government that was not allowed to quote from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. Of course the article needs to draw (and probably predominantly) on secondary sources -- some of which may explain, among other things, the possible translation biases you suggest -- but why prohibit mention of the relevant primary sources? Bruce M. Tindall 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. Only inserted where I had meant it to go above. Bad keyboard! Bad keyboard! Howard C. Berkowitz 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now I understand, Luuuuke! Bruce M. Tindall 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, it will need to integrate other references at some point. Actually, what might be a good step would be creating a subpage for Angels solely as mentioned in the Bible, maybe a page called Angels "(Biblical)", and then provide only a shortened summation on this page of the Biblical usage, with a link to the subpage. I think right now I will 'edit boldly' and move the Biblical material to a subpage, and then work on a concise summary of angels as mentioned in the Bible. By all means, let me hear your thoughts on whether this is the best way to go about this, and what your thoughts are on how the page('s) structure should be idealized. --Joshua Zambrano 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)