Talk:Talmud Jmmanuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Åke Eldberg

Rather than the opinion of a Lutheran-Episcopal clergyman (who is probably not a neutral observer), I would like to have the opinion of a forensic linguistic analyst whose area of expertise consists of comparing the disputed document with the known writings of the suspect and looking for tell-tale similarities in style. This science has developed a great deal along with many other branches of forensics. (Perhaps there is a Wikipedia article about it. I haven't looked.) Mike Hayes (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV statement

James Deardorff would certainly be considered a "Serious Biblical Scholatr" by most impartial observers (whether one agrees with him or not) therefore I have changed the POV stetement "not taken seriously by any biblical scholars" to not taken seriously by many biblical scholars which is neutral as the rules of Wikipedia require articles to be. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful paragraph

The following paragraph seems particularly dubious. Given that the "Talmud Jmmanuel" is regarded by most scholars to be a hoax, and the POV undertones I am moving the paragraph here. GabrielF 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The discovery is described as, In 1963 Eduard Albert Billy Meier and his friend Isa Rashid, a former Greek-Orthodox priest, recovered these four scrolls. The document was encased in resin and buried for nearly 19 centuries. Isa Rashid translated the first scroll of 36 chapters from Aramaic into the German language of Meier. Rashid's work was interrupted when the Israeli authorities discovered his work in Jerusalem. Rashid fled with the scrolls to a Lebanese refugee camp, but the Israeli Military bombed the camp, forcing him to flee to Baghdad. Because the scrolls were either destroyed in the bombing or they fell into Israeli hands, the remaining three were never translated, and their message was lost to the modern world. [1] [2]
The bombarment of Israel on the camp was not a joke, and it is also very much evident that Isa Rashid was murdered for his work. Its not such a small thing to just trash and say its hoax. The events above mentioned in paragraph are told by many sources and one of the reference I gave is a Journal and not any personal blog of a person.
And also, that professor refered is also not a hoax, please give him his due weight here dont just negate all the references and fact because you dont like them.
Its very good approach to include the both fact findings to make it NPOV.
VirtualEye 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources supporting a hoax are not good encyclopedia content. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with writing this article is that it's such a farce that no serious researcher, media source, or anyone else takes it seriously. So there aren't any reliable sources. It would be kinda like writing an article on the purple elephant that lives in my backyard - nobody takes it seriously so there's no research. Consider:
“ You brood of vipers, in two times a thousand years you and your followers, who pursue false teachings out of your own arrogance in your greed for power and fortune, shall be vanquished and on account of your lies, punished. ”
“ This Earth can nourish and support five hundred million people of all human populations. But if these laws are not followed, in two times a thousand years there will exist ten times five hundred million people, and the Earth will no longer be able to support them. ”
“ For over two thousand years you will be wrongly accused of betraying me, because Simeon the Pharisee wants it so. ”
“ Not until two times a thousand years will an unassuming man come who will recognize my teachings as truth and disseminate them with great courage ”
There's more of the same, but you get the idea ... nobody is going to take seriously a book "found" in the 20th century that makes a bunch of "prophesies" about the 20th century. I've looked and even the anti-cult websites - nobody takes it seriously enough to respond to it. --BigDT 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of the "J"??

Before the mid 17th-century (and sometimes even well into the 18th-century) "I" and "J" were variant swash glyphs of one and the same letter. Except in a few narrow specialized philological contexts, scholars routinely transcribe "J"-looking letterforms as modern "I" if they clearly represent vowels, and routinely transcribe "I"-looking letterforms as modern "J" if they clearly represent consonants. I don't understand what the insistence on "J" here is supposed to prove... AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)