...and the understander will understand
The Old Testament/Tanakh section should be subdivided into the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim, and the Twelve Minor Prophets should be grouped as a subcategory, not as free-standing categories of their own.
I believe that it would be appropriate for TV Tropes to simply list Biblical history examples under “Real Life” instead of “Literature” or “Mythology.” This is despite the majority of people/scientists/religions, etc having a contrary opinion. It is at the very least as well-substantiated from an evidential and empirical perspective as worldviews which reject it as such. Being a vast question of fundamental worldview, I must, for the purposes of keeping this entry brief enough to be able to fit into this forum, refrain from directly giving supporting arguments. Instead, I point out the sheer quantity of information available to support this thesis and offer hyperlinks as food for thought, emphasizing in particular the professional scientific journals available for publishing articles mainstream publishers dismiss out of hand due to prejudice. These links are but a small sampling of the information product of the community of Judeo-Christian Apologeticists, obviously only representing my personal exploration and not the millions of other people’s.
https://creation.com/creationist-organizations-in-the-usa
https://www.summit.org/christian-apologetics/
https://coldcasechristianity.com/
https://www.rzim.org/site/help/apologetics
What is this community’s position?
Edited by SaucySamurai7
I'am Cross Wicking Trial by Ordeal and would like the following exemple:
- Trial by Ordeal: The Book of Numbers allows women accused of adultery by their husbands to be submitted to the ordeal of the bitter water, which makes them supposedly sterile if they are really guilty.
Why am I not surprised about there being a page for the fucking Bible?
Edit: Whoops! Sorry, didn't mean to reply to your comment!
Edited by BUGLORD6000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1SEi1qWrqI
Why is the editing locked? Can I get it edited, please?
There are a few problems I’d like to edit.
“On a related note, there are several major opinions on what the Bible is. According to the Christian viewpoint, the Bible is an anthology of books by divinely inspired followers of God and Christ over a period of 600 to 1600 years, including: biographies, histories, manuals of rules and laws, songs and ritual prayers, advice for living like in Paul's letters, and divine revelations. (For the traditional Jewish perspective, strike out the words "and Christ" and "like in Paul's letters," and reduce the number of years by two to six hundred years.) There is debate among Christians over just what "divinely inspired" entails; some say this means everything in the Bible should be taken completely at face value, while others hold that some parts (like the book of Genesis, for example) are meant to be taken as allegorical or symbolic writings, not to be interpreted literally. The latter view is held by most mainline Protestant denominations and is the official position of the Catholic Church.”
Most Protestant denominations DO NOT take the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic, they interpret it literally. I do understand the writer may have intended other biblical passages, but that is the impression I got, and also I realize a few verses can be both literal and symbolic.
o “Thanks to translations and tradition, YHWH is hardly ever known by His actual Name, and is referred to as, "God" (El / Theos) or "the Lord" (Adonai / Kurios) for most of the Book. When the English text reads "LORD" in ALL CAPS, it's a circumlocution for YHWH—the taboo against speaking his name wasn't in effect until the Hebrew Bible had already been written.”
There is a Jewish custom against saying or speaking God’s name in public or most places. I believe the “custom” of “not speaking his name” was made before the entire Bible was written.
Jewish Why Don’t Jews Say G‑d’s Name?
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1443443/jewish/Why-Dont-Jews-Say-Gds-Name.htm
“Iron was good for keeping fairies from steeling your baby and replacing it with a changeling. Coincidentally enough, it also says the Bible itself repels fairies just as well as iron.”
Does the Bible really mention fairies?
Anyone here thought of making a page for the Song of Solomon (not the 1977 novel with the same name) before?
Hide / Show Replies
Why the Hell is this locked? And where the Hell does it say that David was fourteen?
Hide / Show Replies
Why is it locked? Two words: edit war. Specifically, between one of the "treat it like a book" crowd [me] and an Unknown Troper of faith greatly offended by my additions, with matters exacerbated by fundamental disagreements over what the definitions of some tropes are making it impossible to come to agreement over whether they applied. In short, its a bit controversial.
Edited by SchizoTechnician
Darn it, I wanted to add a snarky comment about how I never noticed John's penis in the Da Vinci painting. But alas, the page is locked and I cannot. :(
Schizo Technician is wrong about that, and anyone who checks the discussion archives will see why; contrary to his claim, he didn't want to merely treat the Bible like "a book." He wanted to treat the book like Snark Bait, and rant for paragraphs on end about his beef with that book.
His real intentions are readily visible from several of the edits he made to the article; even Fast Eddie acknowledged Schizo Technician's attitude when he "de-vitrified" one of his references.
More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples for some of his edits, and was insistent on continuing to use them regardless of real purpose of the tropes he tried to employ.
He's admitted that he's an atheist, that he thinks that the lack of snarking and heckling makes the article "religiously biased," and that he "can't leave his bias alone." He's insisted on using tropes incorrectly to toss in paragraphs of ranting about scientific inaccuracies that veered into "because science proves this interpretation wrong, the Bible is entirely bunk."
Quite frankly, it doesn't take a person of "great faith" (as he believes) to be irritated by that kind of behavior ... and we're not just dealing with any old piece of literature here—we're dealing with something that's Serious Business for a lot of people. You'd think that more people would be more mindful due to that. Apparently not.
Edited by 66.138.203.101
I said I admit that I was biased. I readily admit that some of what I put in- particularly the Science Moves On bit, as I realize now- was wrong. I am sorry for that. I am not sorry for the rest, though. I maintain that you were equally wrong, in the opposite direction, for two reasons. One, Fast Eddie did note that you were getting rid of perfectly valid trope examples, such as Broken Base- and I only got vitriolic when you kept removing a perfectly valid example that, as far as I could tell, was the best example of that trope around, rather than a marginal example. Two, the article had humor in it before. While I admit that it may have gone a bit too far at points, I personally think it went too far in the other direction now- it takes the bits important to people as important now, yes, but you also can't have any jokes in it; I wasn't trying to make fun, I was trying to get a laugh, since I'd seen this as one of the funnier pages before you made its position neutral. Serious Business I agree with totally- but to see Serious Business as a reason for removing any attempts at humor is unforgivable; I went to a hebrew day school in my youth and to say that they didn't joke around would be lying. I may have gone several miles too far in the not-serious direction (again, barring the science moves on thing, which I admit crossed the line), but only because nobody else was trying to go in the not-serious direction at all- I kept changing the babel entry becuase I wanted the phrasing and reference to be humorous, rather than explanatory. Not to mention, again, my attempts to add trope examples that I honestly didn't see as trying to be insulting or even joking at all, again I focus on Broken Base here.
Edited by SchizoTechnician
Within the context of this wiki, the Bible is a piece of literature, and deserves both serious and snarky entries just as much as any other. I, for one, would love to put up Satan as a Designated Villain, since he doesn't do much more than bitch around and hand apples to girls, whereas the Designated Hero God kills off the whole planet.
Edited by Dentaku
I think SchizoTechnician is rather representative of the Hate Dumb of this particular work. Indeed, looking back, I think it was his intention all along to get the page for this particular work locked, so fewer tropers would visit this page, knowing they cannot make edits.
I say this, because any of the complaints he were to make could have been discussed here on the discussion, or even on the Just Bugs Me page. Why continue to pour bile on the main page when there are far more appropriate places for it? To me at least, the answer seems obvious.
Thanks for ruining it for us, mate.
"Get me a gun, I'm a soldier; but put me in that suit and I'm a superhero." - Gunnery Sgt Roberta "Bobbie" Draper MMC
Honestly, my main problem was that the humor was being taken out; and the snarkiness was what made it funny.
Unfortunately, I'm way too passionate about this stuff to put the humor back in without my vitriol slipping in. By the time I had noticed it, I was already in an edit-war, and you know how those things get.
The problem was only exacerbated by the fact that we had entirely different ideas about what construed neutrality- he thought snarkiness tipped it in the atheist direction, and I thought lack thereof made it biased in the judeo-christian direction. My own idiocy prevented discussion of that from becoming apparent until we were too emotionally invested to back down. I even waited a week for passions to cool, and tried my darndest to be more neutral about things- but failed miserably, because I'm an idiot who is too pasionate for his own good or others.
I'd be fine with it being reopened as long as I and the other IP address are personally locked from the page, it isn't treated like a bible seminar, and, ideally, that the fact that controvery exists can be mentioned, although the fact that I am preferential to that last one probably shows why I personally shouldn't be let on this page.
I had actually suggested that I be personally banned from the page instead of a general lock, I think, or at least meant to, but also was a mite concerned that I wasn't alone in being too passionate about it for safety- I only approached it in the first place, f'rinstance, because the other guy purged half the entries, and he didn't have a handle I could touch. For comparison, I also think its flamebait to have trope details and wild mass guessing on the pages for current politicians (there was discussion on the Obama and Bush pages a while back, and I was of the opinion that we should purge), so its not just the bible that I think we should as a whole drop when the inevitable conflict arises- I wasn't aiming for it, but when the problem manifested on its own, I at least partially supported lock as a solution to the problem *, although I was never going for that in my additions to the page. I only thought it was a good idea after the week-long cooling off period failed critically, too.
As for the discussion page, check the archived discussion- we tried to discuss it there, but I was an utter asshole idiot about Science Marches On (I thought, wrongly, that it was being snarky to think of it as having tried to be scientifically accurate to its day- again, I was being fucking stupid, as that is being insulting, not snarky, there is a line and that one crosses it), and he was similar over Broken Base (there are multiple sects, ergo the base is broken), and we never got anywhere diplomatically.
As for It Just Bugs Me!, we might have, I'm pretty sure there was a purge of that one a while back.
Also, I suspect, as hinted above, that it would have ended up locked even if the Unknown Troper and I hadn't gone up in flames. The Bible is a hell of a lot more controversial even than the rest of the stuff on the Locked Pages list.
Also in summary because this post isn't long enough yet, the reason I pouring the bile on is becuase I didn't realize it was bile at the time, just like the Unknown Troper didn't realize that the piles he deleted were valid examples.
And since the page hasn't been broken yet, I also gotta mention that given that I only became an atheist after going to Hebrew Day School for 4 years and thinking hard about it, I'd be pushing my agenda by increasing discussion and analysis, not getting people to forget about it, like you suggest I was doing.
Edited by SchizoTechnician
I hope so, but i highly doubt it. I understand that pages rarely get unlocked and the bible is a religious work. It also has many variations (even within the same religion), and thus what can even be consisered part of THE bible is up to debate. I don't think i need to explain much more than that. Hopefully the troper community will be mature about how to handle the fate of the material on the page through civilized means like pms and talking about it on the discussion instead of just crudely changing it back to the way the want it till the admins feel they have no choice but to lock the page ruining the fun for everyone. Locking pages make the site stagnant as preventing both recording of tropes and making tropes known. I noticed some tropes are missing (like The Swarm) and it is disappointing that i can't edit them in like you can with My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic page (which is also locked). I'm not sure if you noticed, but from what i perceived some people in the troper community are not as easy going as others, and to them spoilering It Was His Sled material, like jesus dying is just a waste of time and not a good laugh for those bold enough to look at the spoiler. I admit that there is something on this site that i don't like, presumably in part because its trying to be comical and i don't find it as such. I am disappointed to the point of disgust that the even the YMMV bible page is locked. A YMMV page is by definition supposed to have the subjective content about the work that are to subjective for the main page, and thus members of the community should be expected to have a much higher tolerance for leaving up material you don't think belongs there. I have a feeling that if a YMMV page is locked, the prospects of its main page counterpart being unlocked are particularly grim. If you have the slightest suspicion that there is an edit war on a page, read the page's edit history. if it is really going on you can look at the percipients through the edit history and tell them to stop before the admins kill the fun for everyone. try to get them to talk things out if participants can't come to an agreement on the page's content directly hopefully you can have a vote in the discussion page. I hope that admins will talk to the people involved in the edit war before putting a long term lock on the page. I think admins should consider unlocking locked pages after a discussion with the community on the fate of the page in regards to what the war was about.
To request a page unlock, go to this thread. If you want an edit made to this page, go to this one.
it should be mentioned along the Exodus link that it includes Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua
I would like to request an edit on some of these queries. They have some grievances and queries that apply to other religions as well, such as Values Dissonance in the Old Testamant, which is the same as the Jewish holy book. Yet all these queries and complaints are absent from the Torah's page on Tv Tropes and the Bible's page here has been bombarded with it to the point that there had to be an edit, which appears to be evidence of anti-Christian bias.
Hide / Show Replies
Can you give us a link to the Torah's page on TV Tropes?
Let's just say and leave it at that.
The Talmud. Note how the Your Mileage May Vary page for the Talmud is much shorter than the Bible's, and that the Bible's Your Mileage May Vary page had to be locked against editing due to (from the Locked Pages page " Chronic edit war over Trope definitions and proper page tone and perspective..."). Also this singling out is in contrast to the page for the Qu'ran (see here; The Qur'an), the holy book of Islam which has (fortunately) remained free of the desecration that has plagued the Bible's page despite the increasing amounts of anti-Islam sentiment following 9/11. Also note that the Bible has ten reviews, some of which are sadly just scornful rants (by people I personally suspect haven't read the whole Bible, or any it at all), yet such scorn is (thankfully) absent from the pages for the Talmud and the Qu'ran.
I have a theory, here sampled from the Acceptable Religious Targets page regarding Christianity; "There are also possible cases where Christianity is mocked as a way to mock the other Abrahamic religions by proxy. Regarding said religions, mockery of Islam has become rare because many have given them a reputation following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 so those people fear (violent) reprisals if they criticize Islam, while Judaism has history of persecution and there's a significant amount of Jewish influence in Western media. Interestingly, in the case of the second, many people overlook or are unaware of the fact that Christians (and by extension Christianity) has also had a history of being unfairly persecuted."
See what I mean?
(P.S. I realize that I may have mixed up Torah and Talmud; what I meant is that in the first example the Christian holy book and the Jewish holy book are practically the same yet the Christian holy book is scorned here while the Jewish holy book doesn't seem to be).
Edited by quirkygenius
If you want to suggest/request edits to locked pages, bring them to this thread.
If you think the review feature is used as an excuse to rant, you can flag 'bad' reviews to bring them to the attention of a mod. Use the little red button at the top of the review textbox.
As for your claim that TV Tropes is biased against Christianity, consider:
- The Torah consists of what are the first five books in the Bible. This means that our page for The Bible, as well as our separate pages for the individual books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), double as our pages for The Torah. Anything said about these five books on YMMV.The Bible is about the Torah.
- Note how the fact that The Torah was a dead link up to now could be interpreted as evidence that TV Tropes is biased against Judaism. I just now made it a redirect to The Bible.
- The page for the Bible is much longer as those for either The Qur'an or The Talmud. That there is a greater number of negative/critical entries among a greater total number of entries is what you would expect when the quota of negative entries is equal.
- The paragraph you quote in support of your accusation that TV Tropes is biased against Christianity is quite biased itself. It was obviously written by a very partisan Christian who harbors strong negative sentiments towards Islam and Judaism. If you think that paragraph is an objective and impartial analysis, then maybe you are just a little biased yourself.
- Isn't it ironic you use a quote from TV Tropes to formulate your claim that TV Tropes is biased for you?
Please remember that reviews are for opinions, though. A lot of supposed "rants" are simply reviews you disagree with.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Thanks for the reminder about reviews, Septimus.
Regarding your points Lord Gro:
1) Thank you for explaining what the Torah consists of and how to flag reviews. Also, thank you for your words helped me to figure out the difference between the term Torah and the term Talmud.
2) My mistake about the dead link.
3) The Bible's page being longer than those of the Qu'ran or the Talmud seems to be due to those complaints and issues that are absent from the Talmud's and the Qu'ran's page despite the fact that those holy books have some of the same issues, so I don't think that disproves my point.
4) I am not against Islam and Judaism though I am neither. That quote, to me, was a plausible set of theories as to why Christianity is criticized more than Judaism and Islam these days in media. I do not consider it impartial, in fact I find a lot of things on this site regarding religion very subjective , including the atheist and agnostic parts (if fact, looking back, this site gives off a predominantly atheist vibe, at times approaching anti-theist/new age atheist). It is true that the media has perpetuated the stereotype of "most terrorists are Muslims" and fueled the fires of fear. While I'm not sure how much that quote applies to Judaism, I do know that several key media authority figures and founders of Western media are Jewish and that... poking fun at Judaism in the media: generally "bad taste". Jokes about practically every other religion: not so much. After having a look at the page the quote was right in at least one way; Christianity, to use that example, had a longer folder than all the other religions. Look at the folders on the page Acceptable Religious Targets.
5) No I don't consider it ironic, since I did my own research upon seeing that quote and realized there was a grain of truth to it hence why I used it. If you want the sites I researched, just ask.
P.S. Perhaps I am biased. I am more biased than some Christians (who may have seen what I saw but decided not to call it out) but less biased than others (I can recognize when other religions or even atheism/agnosticism teach something good even though I'm not one of them). Pointing to my bias is approaching the Ad Homenim logical fallacy; attacking the person rather than the argument they're making. That veiled remark that I'm biased could also apply to you Lord Gro, either biased for another belief system or against Christianity since you appear quick to dismiss the notion that Christianity's at times unfairly picked on; so that insinuation does nothing to prove or disprove either of our views.
Edited by quirkygenius
P.S. It's quite indicative of anti-Christian sentiment that the Tv Tropes page for the Bible was the subject of so much Bible-bashing that the moderators had to lock the page against editing. They also had to lock the Bible's YMMV page and completely overhaul the Bible's Headscratchers page. Such steps didn't have to be taken for the Talmud's page or the Qu'ran's page, even though some of the issues that some people take with the Bible can also be found in those religious texts.
Edited by quirkygenius
Maybe it's your supposition, but these other pages have also had their fair share of problems, same for Muhammad's page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Thank you for clearing that up, Septimus. I did not know that. It appeared that way to me because, as stated before, the Bible's page had to be edit-locked while the Talmud's and the Qu'ran's didn't. But now I know.
Yonder Fork
Should we really have a review section? That could tick a lot of people off.
You shouldn't have done that. Hide / Show Replies
I agree. The fact we had to lock the main page because of subjective matter is enough of a reason. The main page is not even supposed to have subjective material and you allow a section that allows people to give their opinion on a book that is that is the basis of over 2 billion lives? Trolling and anti-Christianity statements aren't just possible, not just inevitable, but an invitation.
Agreed, cut it.
At least the last review was pretty funny
Edited by SquigPie
Objectively looking at the reviews on the Bible in literature, this troper does not see the point of removing something on the possibility that it can be exploit it. Looking back through all the reviews, they are all, in fact, quite thorough, and each reviewer has taken the time to try and place their point in a non-combative manner. As long as this continues, then its the responses to the reviews which might be the only means of scrutiny.
Even those are pretty clean, as people make a distinct habit of keeping stuff on topic. It is clear to anyone that the Bible, Koran, and just about any religious text out there is subject to every trick in the book and then some, in the way of critiquing. Now, only if this is being abused would TV Tropes have ample reason to remove it.
This troper also believes that if tvtropes allowed the Bible on the page to begin with, then they are full well aware of the mass internet backdraft that is possible. If this doesn't bother them, then it must be monitored.
Which means that they are ok with it.
I am the once and future king.
It is so sad that the Bible gets so much scorn. Interestingly, the Talmud and Koran pages on Tv Tropes are locked. How they have managed to escape any scorn or disagreement?
By being locked maybe?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
XBOX: Turn on. XBOX: On. XBOX: Buy me a PS4
The Reviews need to be erased and locked. I'm an atheist but that's going to turn a lot of people from the site and offend them. Not good.
The world isn't ready for giant T4 combustion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GbpGiYmBSs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKm9 Hide / Show Replies
That would also prove a case for about any book on religion to have their reviews erased and locked. Even worse.
I am the once and future king.
Would there be a way to regulate the reivews? That section could prove to be a magnet for Flame Bait and trolls.
Knows-Many-Things
Why does it feel like a lot of the Bible examples are just barely containing any pent up aggravation towards the religions and beliefs involved?
Find the Light in the Dark Hide / Show Replies
It could be the use of words that imply contempt, or diverse opinions among people on Tv Tropes even all the way up to the mods themselves. Sadly, these days it seems Christianity is an acceptable target for scorn and mockery; I don't like that idea and disapprove of it, I'm just stating what I've seen and heard.
AAAGGGGH LOCKED
Can this get added?
- Bookends: In the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus is baptized, the heavens split in half and God announces that Jesus is His son. At the crucifixion, a curtain depicting the heavens in the temple tears in half and exposes the Ark of the Covenant (figuratively God's presence).
And well we're add it, can somebody add that Mary Magdalene Glomps Jesus after the Resurrection? - Thinks Too Much
And then there's adding Corinthians to the list of parts with their own pages. -Mugen Kagemaru
I'm not sure about this iffy sentence (particularly the use of the word 'ever). "Historically, it resulted in the most devastating (literally) Flame Wars (also often literally) ever." Wars have been fought over the Bible and what it says, but I do not think they have been the most devastating ever. For example, millions of people died in World War 1 and that was wasn't fought for, or over, the Bible. The lack of examples of these devastating wars also makes the statement appear less credible in my opinion.
I suggest providing an example, even if it's the Crusades though the Crusades had other causes as well including religious persecution AGAINST Christians, or just changing the wording to "Historically, it resulted in devastating (literally) Flame Wars (also often literally)."
Edited by tropelion Hide / Show Replies
I put something along these lines up.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Um... as a Jew, shouldn't we have an umbrella page for the Tanakh, to differentiate it from the New Testament? It seems like a lot of the content of this page and it's relatives (see: YMMV) are written from a Christian perspective, and since the New Testament changes a LOT (I.E. Elaborating on Satan, introducing the trinity), the way the Bible is interpreted changes a LOT (i.e. the interpretation of God's gender, the nature of sin, what sorts of consequences exist, etc.). Even if a whole alternate article is out of the question, pages for the books of the Tanakh besides Genesis and Exodus would be nice. Even a combined page for the remaining books, since a lot of those are either giving commandments or a recap. It feels rude to have my cultural holy books get glossed over like that, even though my interest is more on the intellectual/literary side of things.
Edited by 128.109.70.178
Why The Bible is in "Literature" and not in "Religion"?
Hide / Show Replies
Because we are troping the work, not the religion. Taking The Bible as a work also reduces Flame Bait and the like.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
But it's not a work like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings! and myths of other religion are under "Religion and Mythology".
The Bible's a work, yes. That there is a religion attached to it is not an important difference for our purposes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Classical Mythology is not a single work and, thus, can't go under literature. Religion- inspired works such as The Iliad & The Odyssey do, however. Same deal with the The Qur'an and other religious texts.
Besides, Useful Notes/Christianity exists outside the literature index.
Edited by 79.103.139.116 It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Motion to add Hereditary Curse, given specifically to Ham by his father Noah (which some Orthodox Jews see as still valid today) and a recurrent theme appearing as Yahweh’s most popular form of punishment in Kings I-II (but not in Chronicles I-II, which retells the Kings part with the punishment being individualistic), along with the inverse saying that he rewards people’s offsprings for their ancestors actions for many more generations ahead.
Edited by 77.127.206.166 Hide / Show Replies
Feel free to ask here.
Is not actually from Lyniezia
The Jacob Marley Warning example is inaccurate: the rich man, in hell, was addressing Abraham, not God.
Hi
There are many Zero Context Examples on the page, but since this was pointed out to me in a PM, I'll move it here for discussion/elaboration. Once it's fleshed out sufficiently, it can be put back on the page.
- Canon Discontinuity: Where do we start...?
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include several Old Testament books that are not included in most Protestant bibles. The various Orthodox churches include several more books that neither Catholics nor Protestants include. There is broad agreement among Christian dominations about the New Testament canon (that was pretty much settled in the 2nd century) but a lot of stuff was cut out, like the Gospels of Peter and James. Then there's the Book of Mormon, which is recognized by the LDS Church (and its offshoots) but not by other Christian denominations. Seems like this trope is easily justified. Wikipedia has a lot about this.
That is only the very, very tip of the iceberg. As in, first few inches of an iceberg that goes down for miles.
Jews: Everything after Chronicles II is noncanon.
Christians (Non-Mormon): Everything after Revelation is noncanon.
Muslims: Everything in Broad Strokes, some parts accurate, other parts never happened
Mormons: The Qu'ran never happened, the Book of Mormon did
And, of course, the wars, pogroms, holocausts, crusades, and many badly made Very Special Episode that come out of this disagreement.
Romans Chapter 1 flatly says that all proffessed Atheists are Nay Theists
Excuse the long quote
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."
Edited by 69.172.221.4
Maybe just a quibble, but Lucifer gives an example of a name and that fallen angel stuff isn't in the Bible.
I guess "Book of Milton" will eventually be included given that everyone seems to assume that stuff is "canon" but...
So, I was reading this here trope page when I came across something. The Bible is a trope maker for a bunch of different tropes (and says such on the page), but nowhere on this site that I can find is a list of which tropes it is the maker of!
It only appears a single time on the trope makers page and only then to say that another work isn't the trope maker for that trope. If it really is a trope maker as the page claims (which I think it is), then it should have which tropes it made listed somewhere.
I'd like to request an edit to Always Chaotic Evil. Satan falls more under Neutral or Lawful evil.
Hide / Show Replies
Edit requests go here. Be sure to write up the new example as you wish it to appear on the page.
I don't suppose it's very fair or polite wording toward the copyists — if only I could find a kinder alternative to this trope name — but here goes:
- "Blind Idiot" Translation: Controversy arises over who killed Goliath and which giant Elhanan killed. The copyists wrote that Elhanan struck down Lahmi, the brother of Goliath in I Chronicles 20:5. But in II Samuel 21:19, Goliath is the giant Elhanan killed and "Lahmi" is part of "Bethlehemi'te" as Elhanan's designation.
- II Sam 21:19: בית הלחמי את [Beyth HaLachmi Eth] — the Bethlehemite (within subject)I Chron 20:5: את לחמי אחי [Eth Lachmi Achiy] — (direct object) Lahmi, the brother of
- Since David killed Goliath, the account in I Chronicles is more likely the correct one — Lahmi as direct object, not within the subject.
- Likely, in II Samuel, the accusative sentence-divider "Eth" before "Lahmi" was mistaken for "Beth" (hence Bethlehemite) and "Eth" after "Lahmi" is a misreading of "brother of" (as the Hebrew letters look a lot alike).
One that needs removing:
- Ironic Name: Ahab means love, King Ahab is one of the most evil men in the Bible.
Not true (the "means love" part). Yes, "Ahava" means "love", but that's with a "heh" (ה) soft-H, "אהבה". "Ahab" uses a different letter, for a rough "ch" sound (like "loch"): "אחאב". (That's spelled with a "ח", the "ch" sound.) Etymologically, the two have nothing to do with each other. (The actual etymology of Ahab's name is unknown.)
In Hebrew, the name wouldn't be "ironic", because to a Hebrew speaker, "achav" (the king's name) doesn't sound enough like "ahava" ("love") for there to be confusion, or even a pun. And in Greek/Latin/English, "Ahab" doesn't sound like "love", either. It's only ironic if you know just a tiny bit of Hebrew.
Edited by Narsil Hide / Show Replies
Please take edit requests here so the mods can see them. I've posted these ones for you.
Ah, thanks! Sorry, I didn't know the right place to do it. (Nice of Telcontar to lend Narsil a hand, as it were... ;-) )
'Tis okay; thanks in turn for contributing to the wiki! (XD Surely it should be you helping me out, trusty sword.)
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Could a moderator add Please Shoot the Messenger? Suggested text:
- Please Shoot the Messenger: King David gets Uriah out of the way by sending him back to camp with dispatches for the general, Joab. Joab's orders: "Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."
Nice to see that TV Tropes' crew is keeping things respectful and classy, especially as it relates to religion. I'm glad you guys are working to minimize flame wars; makes this site a better place to waste hours upon hours of my life. Thanks!
Edited by Dingbot
His Excellency
Two things I'd like to point out:
1 - 3 is a pretty important arc number/memetic number. When three rocks up, so does God.
2 - Under the trope "The Messiah", the description states:
"(Many, including the Messianic Archetype, Jesus.) Three big ones. Jesus, Mohammed (technically a prophet, rather than a messiah, but fulfilling a similar narrative role), and the nameless "moshiach", or messiah of the Jews, who don't accept the cannonicity of the New Testement. The last one one has only appeared in previews and foreshadowing, so we're still waiting on the next sequel to provide his name."
Mohammed doesn't appear in the Bible, so what's he doing here? Probably better to go with:
The Messiah - Plenty of examples fit the trope, but while Jews say that the moshiach (capital-M Messiah) is yet to come, Christians say it is Jesus (link Jesus to Messianic Archetype).
And yes, that use of (is Jesus) is purposeful. Change it if you must, but that's how I write it.
Thank you.
Hide / Show Replies
Something for Heel–Face Turn:
- In fact, in the German translation this became Vom Saulus Zum Paulus - "from Saul to Paul", a common German figure of speech.
Kings Ahab and Manasseh underwent Heel-Face Turn, Manasseh more spectacularly of the two. Same is true of Paul, in a way. Not that a Jesus-rejecting persecutor is not a Heel, but bear in mind how much Saul of Tarsus truly believed that what he was doing was not evil. (Of course, I suppose some have made that same argument about Ahab and Manasseh. Who knows?) But, with his OT basis, the "Hebrew of Hebrews" actually believed it was a service to God — until he saw the light, that is. For comparison, the Peace Mediation (PMO) of Front Mission and the Four Guardians of Mega Man Zero are all that come to mind right now.
Quatic
Berserk Button — ought this not include God as well, who was so set off by man's warlike nature that he drowned every man, woman, child, animal, and plant on the planet (except a select handful).
Hide / Show Replies
That's not what Berserk Button means. Berserk Button means a really minor thing that makes a character flip out disproportionately whenever it comes up.
The Bible says the entire world was utterly depraved. It's hardly a Berserk Button if the entire world is totally corrupt.
Although, considering God's nature, wouldn't the entire human race being corrupt really only count as a Berserk Button? He did create it, supposedly, what's to say he doesn't just see it as his favorite characters in a TV show he really likes getting killed off?
Edited by Ometta6 When did I become such a bleeding-heart? I'm the one who shouldn't be caring!
Yonder Fork
Should we really have a review section? That could tick a lot of people off.
You shouldn't have done that.
Neverending Genderscrew
Can we add a stinger at the bottom of the page? "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." Revelations 22:21.
Could we add Reasonable Authority Figure for Pontius Pilate? The Bible said that he didn't think Jesus was a threat and tried several times to pardon him with a lesser sentence. The only reason he finally had Jesus crucified was because the Pharisees bullied him into it by threatening to tell Caesar that a king of the Jews was threatening his rule.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, the Bible says a lot of things. That is very far from an accurate presentation of what the man was actually like (to cut a long story short, he was recalled because his methods were so brutal that Rome feared he was likely to spark rebellion).
Edit- Thinking that was an overly hostile response. Basically, because of the above, if he's added as an example, it should be in the sense that The Bible/whichever Gospel (John?) presents him in that manner.
Edited by Jordan Hodor
Tangentially relevant — note that we also have a separate page for The Four Gospels.
Let's just say and leave it at that.
How about something like this?
- Reasonable Authority Figure: Regardless of historical records, when it came to Jesus at least, the Bible presents Pontius Pilate as being this. He tried several times to have Jesus pardoned and only had him executed because the Pharisees threatened to tell Rome that a king of the Jews was rising up.
It mentions historical accuracy while leaving enough room for the possibility of the Bible being right in this respect.
It's right that the Bible is remarkably mild on Pontius Pilate, trying to exculpate him at the costs of the High Priests and the Jewish crowd. However, in the end he does order Jesus' crucifixion, even though he thinks Jesus is innocent.
There's Values Dissonance here — we would still think a judge condemning an innocent man to death for political reasons a bad man. The Gospels seem to imply that he did enough to save Jesus.
I would, therefore, in your example, prefer the wording "the Bible tries to present Pontius Pilate as being this"; for I guess it is subjective whether it works.
Let's just say and leave it at that.
That would probably be even better. It would probably be worth mentioning that he probably felt remorse fro killing Jesus, which is necesarry for salvation in the Bible.
Also, what about adding the Pharisees as The Fundamentalist? It's said that they condemn other people's sins without mercy, are hypocritical and corrupt. Fits the trope right? Modern day Christians have even compared modern day batshit fundies to the Pharisees.
"And later the Christianity of Constantine, who simply threw Jesus on the pile of gods he already worshipped." Could somebody please remove this? It's inaccurate (Feel free to prove me wrong there if you can) and more than a little offensive to those who revere Constantine as a saint. Please fix the spelling if nothing else.
It's super effective.
- Ain't No Rule: May qualify as Loophole Abuse. Many perhaps odd-sounding laws in the Old Testament—those regarding sex, for example — were likely designed to prevent this.
- Biggus Dickus: "For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (Ezekiel 23:20)
- Omniglot: One of the powers of true believers, according to Fanon, along with the ability to drink anything poisonous, exorcise demons, heal the sick, and for truest of true believers Nigh-Invulnerability against demons and evil spirits! A few American groups interpret the source for this one (speaking in tounges) to mean a language absolutely nobody on Earth understands. No-one seems to know why.
These need clarifying. I'm not familiar enough with the book to request their removal (or rename) on the "Edit request for a locked page" thread.
Edited by OldManHoOh Hide / Show Replies
For the first, there are some suspiciously specific rules in there, borderling Obvious Rules Patch.
For the second, a rough translation is, "They were hung like donkeys"
As for the third, it seems pretty straightforward, though I'd question what the thing about American groups is about.
Forofgold power!
Newly created trope: Prodigal Hero. It's the trope namer, and the examples (explained on the page) should be added as well.
Seriously, my avatar comes from the embodiment of the So Bad, It's Good trope.
Missing details. Moving 'em to discussion. Please see How To Write An Example. Ho Yay in particular needs lots of in-work specifics because subjectivity is so very easy. We need to know exactly what part of the narrative plays with the idea of a homosexual relationship while definitely stopping short of portraying one. Consider the possibility it is Ho Yay Shipping.
- Ho Yay: There are books dedicated to teasing homoerotic subtext out of David and Jonathan. And then there are more books dedicated to discrediting these! And there are other books trying to explain how this is possible without "man lying with man as with woman". Serious Business all around.
- What Happened to the Mouse?: Holy relics are full of this.
Should this be in the Literature namespace? I know we put The Book of Mormon there and are trying to namespace all works...
Hide / Show Replies
I did it. The main page is now a redirect.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Pittsburghmuggle
Suggestion: Add "It's Been Done" because Ecclesiastes says quite a few times that there is nothing new under the sun.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
Cutlery War Veteran
Would it be fair to add God and The Devil are Both Jerks to this page? They both give plenty of evidence to it, and while God is more of a designated hero than outright evil, he's still an asshole to the greater part of humanity.
T Vtropes is NOT Wikipedia, stop trying to make it that. I'm attacking the darkness! Hide / Show Replies
Suggestion: Add "Continuity Porn: Almost everything the Gospels say about Jesus contains a deliberate Call-Back to the Prophetic Books." They write entire books about the number of times the Bible does this
Hide / Show Replies
Well, since this is locked and all, could somebody with the authority to do so add A Child Shall Lead Them to the list of Trope Namers?
Hide / Show Replies
Could somebody add "Go and Sin No More" to the Trope Namer list?
Hide / Show Replies
Whoever is an admin who can edit, please add something about John for Now I Know What to Name Him - last time I checked they were specifically told to name him that? That shouldn't be controversial, either.
Hide / Show Replies
Can they also add
- Starfish Aliens: Angels are described as such more often than they are humanoid.
There's already a trope for that: Our Angels Are Different, which should be added instead. :P
This is still a signature.
Can they also add the number three to the list of arc numbers? It's pretty-much God's second-favourite number after seven.
And Badass Pacifist should be added for Jesus 'Turns The Other Cheek' Christ.
Ooh! And you need to add Amos's "I'm not a prophet; I'm a shepherd!" under Deadpan Snarker.
would like to add this under TheDutifulSon:
- Actually, considering the context of which Jesus told this parable, and his target audience, the pharisees, the older brother is more of a GoldDigger Hypocrite. He pretended to be by his father's side all along, only to show his true colours when the younger brother returns home, scolding his father and refusing to take part in his father's joy.
Add Paul as another example of Celibate Hero.
1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
"Get me a gun, I'm a soldier; but put me in that suit and I'm a superhero." - Gunnery Sgt Roberta "Bobbie" Draper MMC
Title Drop trope is wrong. The very first word of the New Testament is "bible" (Greek for book: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=1&t=KJV&q=matthew#conc/1 ).
Note that the second word is "genesis" which is likely a [[Continuity Nod]].
I'd like [1] added, if you please. I mean, one kills the world and burns down a city because he doesn't like them, the other corrupts humanity in the first place and tries to ruin Jesus himself, and they both ruin Job's life over a bet.
T Vtropes is NOT Wikipedia, stop trying to make it that. I'm attacking the darkness!
I'd like someone to add A God Am I to the list of tropes on this page that the Bible has named.
Time Abyss is a trope that should be added to The Bible. God being stated as the creator of the universe and a timeless entity that always has existed and always will definitely fits the bill. I'm surprised no one added that before it was locked due to the editing wars.
Stealth Hi Bye: Philip sort of does this in Acts 8:38-40
Hide / Show Replies
Dunkies addict
This should be removed:
- Apocalyptic Log: The Revelation to John of Patmos
It's a log of an apocalypse (in both senses), but that's not what we've defined "Apocalyptic Log" to mean. Apocalyptic Log is used around the wiki to mean a diary describing what killed the author, and although most traditions hold that he died soon after, it wasn't from the revelation so much as just, you know, being a hundred years old in the freaking Roman Empire.
I'm just really sick of people using "examples" based on the name that don't meet the description. Why do they do this?
Edited by TwinBird My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger. Hide / Show Replies
I just created a new trope, and it fits this article. So can someone please add
- Tragic Bromance - David and Jonathan
To this article for me?
I can't add it myself since someone seems to think it's a good idea to lock articles and cripple them in such a way that useful information cannot be added. Not that I'm bitter or anything...
Hide / Show Replies
Pittsburghmuggle
Request to add:
- Wall of Text: While everyone is aware that the Bible is revered by many as having all the answers, many people are shocked at how much text in it is history, etc and not wisdom.
A Date With Rosie Palms: Onan, Genesis 38:8-10. He "spilled his seed upon the ground" rather than knock a girl up. See onanism.
Flipping the Table: Jesus does this with the moneychangers in the Temple.
Edited by Vidor Hide / Show Replies
Why, under "Back From the Dead," is Jesus' name hidden as a spoiler? Of all the possible resurrection tropes, this has to be the most well-known or frequently-referenced one outside of Dracula movies.
Hide / Show Replies
Technically, one could argue that the Bible provides the first known example of "My Own Grampa:" because of God (the Father), the Virgin Mary concieved Jesus, the son of God, one aspect of the Holy Trinity (possible "Hecate Sisters" situation- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one being), although it's more "My Own Dad" than Grampa.
Can we add Expy or other appropriate trope if I got the wrong one please: The following attributes of Jesus - Born to a virgin mother on December 25th - Were the son of God - Were visited my wise men from the East upon their birth - Turned water into wine - Healed the sick - Had magical powers - Rode a donkey - Where betrayed for 30 pieces of silver - Were commemorated with offerings of bread and wine - Died by being nailed to a wooden structure - Were resurrected after three days are present in various earlier deities including Orisis, Horus, Mithras, Baal, Bacchus and Isis
Edited by AnimeOtaku Hide / Show Replies
Add it to the character sheet. This page is locked, and I'd rather not challenge its current status at this time.
See you in the discussion pages.
Look, I understand that there are people who would love to treat the Bible like a fictional work. The problem I have with this is the "fictional". As a Christian, I'm perfectly fine with applying tropes to it like any other piece of literature, but the way this is stylized acts like every single thing on here never happened and it's all a fantasy story thought up by delusional people with faith. Can we please fix the tone in the article at least?
Hide / Show Replies
Only if the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Baghavad Ghita, and the Eddas get the same act-as-if-they-were-historical treatment; otherwise we lose impartiality.
On a less rudely sarcastic note, this is why it was locked. I saw it as having been edited to remove too much of the tongue-in-cheek fictional gags, for example, and got into an edit war (also involving a horrible horrible misstake of mine in one specific area) over it.
In other words, some of us want to pull it more in the fictional direction, and you want to pull it more in the literal direction. To keep the two of us and our ideological kindred from honor-bound edit war, this page was locked in the first place.
Edited by SchizoTechnician
I'm perfectly fine with the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Baghavad Ghita, and the Eddas getting fictional treatment lifted! By attempting to go too far into the fictional direction, people get offended. I understand this is TV Tropes, but we're talking about religion here. By applying sarcasm and humor to it, you are essentially mocking people's beliefs.
Edited by asterselene
Where do you draw the line between valid, non-make-fun-able belief, and Scientology the silly-but-taken-seriously stuff? Judging from the discussion regarding Scientology, at least one of the mods is even more vocal and active than me about pushing that line (I don't remember what he said exactly, but it was something like "all religion seems equally silly to me", the context being why we couldn't single Scientology out for ridicule).
Everyone has a different definition of what constitutes "I don't agree with this, but it makes enough sense that I respect the person who believes it" and what constitutes "this person is completely insane", and a different position on the spectrum between those two extreme points regarding each specific set of beliefs.
I have no idea where I'm going with this, but eh. Something about opinions being waay too different and better to avoid problems than to have those differring opinions of what makes sense and what doesn't clash.
Edited by SchizoTechnician
There's no rule that says belief can't be mocked.
As far as the page goes, I'd say that the only reason this page should be listed is if The Bible is treated, for the purpose of this page, as a fictional book. Otherwise it should be a Useful Notes page. And as far as "sarcasm and humor" go—this is TV Tropes. Sarcasm and humor is the point. This is not a reference work.
We need to add Friend to All Children for Jesus.
All Cretans are liars.—Epimenides the Cretan Hide / Show Replies
Could we add something under In the Original Klingon for people who seriously state that it was written in English, usually using the legendarily inaccurate King James version as the standard?
Gifted Trope Novice
Being that this page is edit locked (makes sense to me, bastards on both sides), could someone please note in the "Arc Numbers" and "Memetic Number" segment that 40 is a Jewish euphamism for "we lost count"? Any time the number 40 is used, it means an undefined, but pretty long/large, amount of time/things.
Edited by LokIago Strike First Strike Fast Strike Hard Strike Last Hide / Show Replies
Seven is also used in a similar matter throughout the book, for that matter.
Wrestler, bodybuilder. No hopes, no dreams.
Why are there spoiler tags on so many references to Jesus dying? Is there really anyone who can read English that doesn't know about that plot point?
Hide / Show Replies
It's mostly a joke. Even though It Was His Sled, such an event would be marked as a spoiler in any other work, so why not the Bible? After all, he gets better.
By the way, "Not to mention the fact that most victims of crucifixion are tied to the cross, Jesus was nailed." is not spoiler tagged. Can someone fix that? :)
Someone add Paul of Tarsus to the Badass list. Fighting wild beasts in Ephesus; being stoned, dragged out of the city, and left for dead only for his followers to find him very much alive later on.
SUP BRO
While I appreciate that this is probably too controversial to put, can I point out that there should be an [1] entry about how the Jesus myth is often said to be based off of Ancient Egyptian stories about Horus, even down to small details:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5d.htm
While I appreciate that this will be controversial, that it may be true should at least count for something. This article is about examining the Bible as a work of media, and examined only in this context, this edit is valid.
Edited by Alloflifedecays Currently working on: debut Absentees album
I'd like to add the following:
"The Reason You Suck" Speech: Matthew 23 was this from Jesus against the Pharisees.
Can a mod add lazarus under Disney Death?
Also, we have pages for Archangel Gabriel and Archangel Michael. I assume that would go under Trope Namer.
Edit: Also, can they add:
- Decapitation Presentation: Judith with the head of Holofernes.
- Possibly also Salome with the head of John the Baptist.
Disney Death is when someone appears to have died and it is subsequently revealed that they are Not Quite Dead.
Lazarus actually did die, but He Got Better
This is still a signature.
I need an admin to edit something very, very minor because I am a horrible, horrible nitpick.
Trope Overdosed was parabombed. It needs a bullet.
Add to Ain't No Rule at the end
"Intrestingly, Leviticus 18 22 has a blatant gap on lesbian relationships, which may or may not be intended."
I'd suggest intended have a pot hole to some STD related trope, but I can't find an appropriate one0
Also, the secret word thingy is "godliest"
Can we remove the Hate Dumb trope from this page? The arguments that richard dawkins and other atheists put forth against certain parts of the bible are certainly not dumb. When Richard Dawkins talks about the bible in his book "the God Delusion", uses the bible to demonstrate that people don't actually get their morals from the bible by pointing to various atrocities committed in it that christians obviously ignore or interpret metaphorically, an action driven entirely by their own moral intuition.
Regardless of what you think of this argument, it hardly qualifies as dumb. Also, this is a locked page, so nothing bad should be said about people that aren't universally considered worthy of the said criticism. You can put it under hatedom, but hate dumb on a locked article is hardly good practice.
Edited by RaustBD
im assuming that the rule of cautious editing judgement doesnt apply to reviews.
Add to Dub induced plot hole
- The age of the earth is not in the original Hebrew.
- Because the King James translation was translated by 2 teams (fair enough, the first half is in Hebrew and the 2nd one is in Greek), a few references to the Old Testament in the New Testament get lost.
Also, one technicality: the page now has a character sheet.
Long live Marxism-Lennonism! Hide / Show Replies
Another technicality: The It Was His Sled entry has an unmatched parenthesis, should be fixed for consistency with the rest of the entries.
Long live Marxism-Lennonism!
Mike Rosoft: I suggest removing the following section from Did Not Do The Research. That Genesis 1-2 were originally two different acounts later combined into one is a legitimate hypothesis and, I dare say, a majority opinion among critical scholars (see Documentary hypothesis) - the page shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
- Another popular criticism used against the Bible is two apparently different creation stories. In reality, there's only one; it's just repeated twice, with differences between the two usually having simple explanations from apologists. There are four similar Gospels describing Jesus, yet no one claims he did all those things four times. It's a common literary device to go from describing an event from the general to the specific.
I think we should basically ignore wikipedia, or at least, that's what we seem to be doing. The Unknown Troper who revised the article shortly before its locking deleted a lot of stuff wikipedia treated as "fact", calling it disrespectful. I admit my edits pushed it past wikipedia in terms of position, but the base level he reverted it to shortly before locking ignores most of wikipedia's definition of "neutral".
Edited by SchizoTechnician
I remember learning about this theory in school - it's a valid theory, though of course difficult, if not impossible, to verify. Someone making reference to an actual theory being tossed around in academic circles probably did do their research, at least a little.
BTW, I'm a chick.
Micromastophile
The pot hole under "Yes, those Persians" in Downer Ending isn't that accurate. Cyrus the Great was actually a pretty nice guy.
Arson Murder and Jaywalker: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b]are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor"
I can understand why the page was locked, but if admins are making any changes, I think we can safely call the Bible the Ur-Example for the Badass Israeli trope.
EDIT: Also, could we get a definitive answer on whether or not changes will ever be made at all? I get the impression the answer is "no," but I'd like something absolute.
Edited by KillerClowns
Pity about the troll; I was hoping to throw in the Crapsack World trope. Not only is Hell portrayed as such, but *this* world as well: humanity is declared hopelessly depraved, and the Bible doesn't flinch from providing plenty of specific examples to underscore the point. Don't let the happy ending fool you: there's plenty of trouble in store for us in the meantime before we get to that part.
Hide / Show Replies
That's more Earn Your Happy Ending.
Edited by PasswordForgettingTroper "I wish I could write as mysteriously as a cat." —Edgar Allen Poe
It should have an entry for As the Good Book Says... about when Jesus and the Devil tossed references to scripture back and forth in the desert.
Just FYI, under Ascend to a Higher Plane of Existence, there is a reference to Mary's "ascension". This is technically incorrect, as "ascending" is something done under one's own power, like the Ascension of Christ. The correct term in this case is "assumption"; Mary is said to have been "assumed" into Heaven by the power of God (being merely human, she obviously couldn't do something like that on her own).
I realize the word is in the trope title, but it remains an inaccuracy in this context.
Is there a trope for the Serpent way back in Eden not being revealed as Satan until Revelation 20:2? It's not It Was His Sled because it's not exactly a twist, but I'm not sure that it's a Retcon either.
Also, the whole article needs to be funnier. The Bible is too important for TV Tropes to take seriously.
Hide / Show Replies
Take a try at it here. Fair warning, though. Bashing is a lot less funny than you might be thinking it is. On any topic.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Maybe it's I Knew It!?
Evil serpent in chapter 1. Come the last chapter and it was Satan all along. I knew it!
It might still count as It Was His Sled though. Just because it's not a twist now doesn't mean it wasn't a twist in 3 gajillion B.C.
You live in 1912. Hey they've got this new ship, it's called the Titanic! "Sounds awesome. I'm sure it will remain in service for many years."
You live in 2010. Hey they've got this new ship, it's called the Titanic! "It'll sink."
Edited by Anaheyla This is still a signature.
should it be mentioned under Everyone Calls Him "Barkeep" that in one passage only (Exodus 34:14) is god's real name ever explicitly stated?
Edited by Kincyr
There are several red links in the Character page, but the one that stands out would have to be Samson's "Testrogen Poisoning" which I assume is supposed to be Testosterone Poisoning.
This is still a signature.
Could someone add a link to "Talmud" in the Adaptation Expansion entry? We have an article, you know...
Edited by karstovich
Whenever someone gets around to editing, I've spotted a mistake.
(For the traditional Jewish.perspective, strike out the words "and Christ" and "like in Paul's lett
There's a period instead of a space between Jewish and perspective. A minor complaint, but I like to nitpick. :)
This is still a signature.
EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!!
Aerith and Bob Think about it: David and Goliath. Judas and Peter. Michael and Lucifer. It goes on and on. This is either subverted or inverted as these names were common at the time and we have chosen those with the best connotations to give to our children.
We need to add this and I see no way anyone can view this as offensive.
Edited by Dalek
Hey, can someone add to the Bond One-Liner example that the Hebrew word for "donkey" is similar to the word for "heap?"
Thank you.
While obviously very controversial, the Most Writers are Male entry on this page desperately needs an update (ironically, it's an example of its own trope right now, haha).
It currently reads: "Chauvinist bias is massively averted in many books. One of the Old Testament Judges (rulers of Israel) was a female, Lady Deborah. The church is described as a woman to be the bride of Christ."
There is, however, a wealth of chauvinist bias present in the Bible that should be mentioned to round out this trope's description.
"Chauvinist bias is massively averted in many books." also contradicts most scholarly examinations of gender bias in the text, which have found its influence in most books. The Bible naturally reflects the treatment of perception of women during the times it was written.
The current entry ignores that the roles of women are massively fewer and more limited across the entire text, as well as glossing over the reason for the Trope itself's inclusion: why religious leaders chose to include zero religious books written by women in the Canon. The multiple points where the Bible directly instructs women's servitude to men are another elephant in the room. While TV Tropes isn't the place for a full analysis of misogyny during this period, it needs to be mentioned in some capacity to accurately reflect the book and how it relates to this trope.
The majority of Christians are well aware that the Bible reflects a different time, and that the text should be interpreted non-literally with the presence of patriarchal bias in mind. This entry as it is currently written is incomplete, both historically and from the perspective of modern Christianity.
You have spotted a 'Rare Editor', you earn 30XP.