Talk:List of biblical names

Poorly sourced, deceptive article

Per everyone above, this list is very poor. It says that "most" of the meanings given here are from one 19th century source, but doesn't indicate which ones. It says itself that meanings have been given, even when there is no agreed-upon meaning. Again, these are not indicated. The meanings given are often extremely suspect, but the list is so long and lacking in proper sourcing that it would be easier to strip every meaning out and start again.

If someone here has access to the book used to source these meanings, stripping the list to match those in the book and rewriting the lede would probably be the way to go: we could make this an article that only claims to list what the book says. We could put this into a table, and add the meanings given by other sources in another column.

If nobody actually has access to that book, then stripping the meanings or even out-and-out deletion seem the best options. I will be pursuing these options if the others don't pan out. 86.177.125.182 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The book can be read online here, but I cannot find such a list within it. Perhaps others will have more luck. It occurs to me that even if the list were checked for conformance to the source, and the article renamed and rewritten to reflect this, that would be more a job for Wikisource than Wikipedia. As such, I will edit the article to reflect the name: I will remove the dodgy definitions and rewrite the lede. As such, the article can still serve to aid navigation without leading people astray. 86.177.125.182 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Have cut lede down, and removed meanings from names in A to B. Also removed some entries that were not names, or were not from the Bible: presumably these last were capitalised words in the 19th century book. Much more to do.

When this is finished, will have to decide whether to leave entries without meanings, or add well sourced meanings. Would probably be more worthwhile splitting lists into people and places. 86.177.125.182 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that we have a separate List of minor Biblical figures for people who are mentioned, but with insufficient information to merit articles. Well-sourced meanings of names could be included there also. bd2412 T 19:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I see we have

1. List of major Biblical figures
2. List of minor Biblical figures
3. List of Biblical places

Do we actually need this list at all? 86.177.125.182 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that it is a collocation of all proper nouns in the Bible, I think it may have some utility. I agree that meanings should not be included unless they can be attested, but I would also point out that our current List of minor Biblical figures is woefully incomplete. bd2412 T 19:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

All righty roo. I'll keep removing the current meanings. Maybe later we can use it to populate the other lists, and then find good, sourced meanings to add to those? 86.177.125.182 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and thanks for your help so far :) 86.177.125.182 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course. We should also style this article as more of an index, and remove the line breaks between names under a given letter (I can do that later through a quick automated process). bd2412 T 20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted article back to list with definitions - reference: Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary 1869.--LordGorval (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In the course of "reverting" the article you have also broken several disambiguation repairs. Please kindly restore these repairs. bd2412 T 14:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back to version of 01:33, 12 May 2010. I do not see any disambiguation fixes after this time and date. --LordGorval (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bible Study Tools says:

As part of the Bible Study Tools Study Library, Hitchcock's Bible Names is linked to Torrey's New Topical Textbook, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Nave's Topical Bible. Anytime a reference can be found in any of the other online tools a hyperlinked symbol will be placed next to the reference, allowing you to immediately jump to that resource and expand your study capabilities.

The following table shows the symbol and its corresponding resource:

• [B] - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
• [E] - Easton's Bible Dictionary
• [H] - Hitchcock's Bible Names
• [N] - Nave's Topical Bible
• [S] - Smith's Bible Dictionary
• [T] - Torrey's New Topical Textbook

Removing deletion notice based on the fact that these definitions can be found in several sources.--LordGorval (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying this entire article should just be reproducing a publically available source? That's what Wikisource is for. Even if we were to do that, we would have to rename this article, since it simply reproduces a single 19th century source: rather than calling it List of Biblical names we would have to call it List of definitions of Biblical names given in Hitchcock's Bible Names. That that particular website links you to other sources as well, doesn't change that they have simply listed the definitions (some extremely dodgy) given in a single 19th century source. The meanings listed here only and exclusively come from Hitchcock's Bible Names. Many do not match the derivations of the names given in other places, in more modern works.

These definitions have not been sourced from anywhere other than that one 19th century work, and they are not properly sourced to it. 86.179.147.79 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for additional input from the Bible WikiProject. 86.179.147.79 (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I second that thought. I'm all for a list in the manner of an index containing all names that appear in the Bible, but we should not include other information unless it is reliably sourced. Other editors have pointed our erroneous definitions above, which is enough for me to conclude that the source leaned upon here is not reliable enough to base an encyclopedia article on. Remember, we are presently representing to the world that these definitions are correct, not merely that they are attributed by one possibly-wrong collector. bd2412 T 21:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above there are other References shown for various names. I believe they are reliable sources also. Take for example the first one of Aaron: a teacher; lofty; mountain of strength. It gives further extensive details by clicking on the blue link letters of the various bibles and dictionaries:

• [N] indicates this entry was also found in Nave's Topical Bible
• [B] indicates this entry was also found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
• [E] indicates this entry was also found in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• [S] indicates this entry was also found in Smith's Bible Dictionary

I don't know if this is 100% correct, however I do know that it is referenced. I don't know if anyone can guarantee if anything in Wikipedia is always correct, however it is referenced. "Referencing" and "correctness" are two different things. There is an article on Roswell Dwight Hitchcock. How accurate and "correct" it is I have no idea, however it does seem to have references. How "correct" the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition is I have no idea, however it seems to be used on a lot of articles for a reference. How accurate and "correct" is My generation: an autobiographical interpretation, Volume 1893 By William Jewett Tucker? That one source could possibly be a wrong contributator. But it is a reference.--LordGorval (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Attention: 83.229.23.242 . Please follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal consistency. Don't use capital letters as the rest of the article list does not use capital letters. Also be sure the definitions come from Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary and are backed up by definitions that can be found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Nave's Topical Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Torrey's New Topical Textbook. The article is written to reflect this. Don't know where you are getting your definitions, however it appears they don't come from these sources. If I am mistaken, please show me some examples as so far I have NOT been able to find them in these sources. This way then any addtions to the list will follow this "Internal consistency." Thanks.--LordGorval (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to insist on definitions coming from Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary, then this article should be moved, as was suggested above, to something like List of Biblical names as defined by Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary. In that case, it really should be moved to Wikisource, rather than remaining in Wikipedia. Moreover, concerns have been raised in discussions above that some of these words are not even names, or that some of the names do not even appear in the Bible. I would like to see a reference for each name on this list for its location, and use as a proper noun, in the Bible (or in any particular version of the Bible). Of course, this will substantially expand the page, enough so that it will need to be split into smaller pages to avoid becoming unweildy to those with slower computers. bd2412 T 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This same person of an I.P. address also suggested that we wait on these matters until we get additional input from the Bible WikiProject, which you agreed with. Apparently an I.P. person only has contributions related to article and seems very passionate about the article just like you. I have no idea where these people come from all of a sudden to your rescue. Magically out of nowhere there are other people to support you and they do not have accounts, just recent I.P. addresses that relate to just this article. Can you explain that coincidence?--LordGorval (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect foul play on my part, I welcome a Checkuser report, and would also invite you to review the 220,000 edits I have contributed to this project. I have no need for sockpuppetry. Perhaps you should consider the fact that an IP happens to agree with the problems of this article, which have been raised by countless users in the sections above, as evidence that there are, in fact, problems with this article. bd2412 T 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at the section citations is that they would be equivalent to having a paragraph citation. It covers the complete section or paragraph. Its a unique citation that pertains to just that section (A, B, C, D, etc). It references the words in that section, therefore individual words do not need individual citations - just like individual sentences do not need individual citations within a paragraph since it covers the complete paragraph.--LordGorval (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for placing the Bible Study Tools Library letter references below the letter itself. Looks a lot better.--LordGorval (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules for citations would allow massive blocks of text conveying multiple claims to evade citation requirements by lumping them together as a single "paragraph". Here, each definition is an individual assertion, unrelated to the one before or the one after. Each requires its own citations. bd2412 T 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me say it another way: My interpretation of the rules for citations would allow blocks of text with a theme (i.e. letter A, B, C, D) to be referenced to the reference for that section (i.e. Bible Study Tools Library letter A, B, C, D, etc). All the reader has to do, if they want additional information on a particular word within that theme letter, is look it up at that letter reference. This is pretty much like looking up a reference at the end of a paragraph for a sentence (or bit of information) inside that paragraph. A bit of information might not necessarily be related to information two sentences down within that paragraph, however within the reference provided it can be found. This is like within the reference provided for each letter can be found additional information of the word within that theme (i.e. letter "A").--LordGorval (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that in many cases it so happens that many times words are related to the one before or the one after. For example: The word you removed of Attalus had a meaning of "increased"; the word before it was Attalia which has a meaning of "that increases"; the word after was Augustus, which has a meaning of "increased." In any case ALL these words have the theme of the letter "A".--LordGorval (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You certainly can't say that about all words starting with the letter A, which is what your usage would cover. bd2412 T 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Within the Bible Study Tools Library letter A are the Hitchcock's Bible Names for the letter "A". Perhaps you can explain further what you mean.--LordGorval (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, not all words starting with the letter "A" have something to do with "that increases". The fact that a few do is irrelevant to the need for individual citations to multiple independent sources. bd2412 T 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

However all words with the letter "A" can be found at Bible Study Tools Library letter A. The additional information for any word with the letter "A" is at this reference; as they are for the letter "B" for the letter "B" reference, etc. Keep in mind the idea of the theme of that particular letter. Any additional information for that letter word (i.e. "D") is at that particular letter's reference, words that begin with the letter "D".--LordGorval (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to transwiki to Wikisource

I propose that this article should be moved to Wikisource. My reasoning is that this article is a word for word copy of a single source (Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary). As such, Wikisource is the proper home for this information. Wikisource's main page explains that "Wikisource is an online library of free content publications, collected and maintained by our community." If you have an interest in this debate, please indicate below whether you Support or Oppose this proposal, and your reasoning behind your choice. If the community can come to a consensus one way or another, then we can take the appropriate action. Thanks for your participation. SnottyWong talk 01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but if it is to be kept, we should remove all uncited definitions (and the tags) and turn this into an index. I could see making it a table so that we could at least indicate where in the Bible these names occur, and what sort of things they are the names of. bd2412 T 02:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, after seeing bd2412's editing strategy, it looks like there is a plan to turn this into an encyclopedic article. I withdraw my proposal. SnottyWong talk 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to an index of Biblical names, so long as it is a cited index containing only definitions that are verified (and eliminating those that are not). There are several directions we can go with this, but at least we are now all in agreement that the Hitchcock definitions must go (and the disambig/bad links must be unlinked). bd2412 T 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SnottyWong talk 00:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Split article

The article split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page I believe to be a good idea since otherwise the one main article will have thousands of individual references - too hard to navigate.--LordGorval (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So this title would be the disambig, and the current list would be divided into, let's say, six or seven individual pages? bd2412 T 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that would be right - IF I understand the question correctly. Could you give me an example of the six or seven individual pages to see if I am understanding you correctly? Would it not be 26 or thereabouts? I figure approximately 3 to 4 references for each name which could be as many as 10,000 references. There are over 2500 names. Even then it would be 300 to 400 references for each letter of the alphabet on average. Can you explain your idea in more detail?--LordGorval (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We won't need individual pages for Q or U, V, or X, for starters (and there is no W). I think we can group them in three-letter bunches to begin with. bd2412 T 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll spilt accordingly (i.e. A, B, C - D, E, F, - G, H I, etc) and work on them when I have time. It appears each name has on average 3 references, which would then be about 900 references for each group. Does that sound right to you? Also it appears that there is already a "List of Biblical names starting with A" of A-Z which are redirects to the existing article. What would be wrong with using those, as it would then be "ONLY" about 300 individual references for each letter. "List of Biblical names starting with Q" could be redirected to "List of Biblical names starting with R" with a note on top of that article that it includes "Q." Same idea for "List of Biblical names starting with U, V, and X and Y" could redirect to "List of Biblical names starting with Z" with a note at the top of article explaining it includes all these letters. THEN in the main article it can be explained that it has been broken down to individual letters and provide those links accordingly. Does that sound logical? Any tables I can not do as that is beyond my technical ability.--LordGorval (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Split off letter "A" and put into List of Biblical names starting with A. I am using these splits already established in 2004, found in Archive 1 in this Talk page. The basis is Hitchcock and then followed up by meanings (which may or may not be the same) and sources from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Nave's Topical Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Torrey's New Topical Textbook. Since there are about 2600 Names and 26 letters to the alphabet, then on average there will be 100 Names per letter. Most of the additional sources will back up Hitchcock, however some will have additional meanings. On average then there will be 3 meanings per Name with sources accordingly. Then there will be about 300 references per letter on average, some 7500 + references total. Please leave Hitchcock meanings in place, otherwise I have to go get them again which causes much more work. Apparently I am basically the only one interested in these meanings, so probably will be one of few contributing to the article. The only reason I am interested in the meanings is because I see different stories than the conventional "religion" of Christianity. I see stories related to ancient Rome. I can find the any additional meanings to the Names from Bible Study Tools. IF you remove the Hitchcock meanings then I will lose interest in the article because of the additional work of having to look up the Hitchcock meanings again. I just have interest in certain Names so they can help me reveal these ancient Roman stories. I have no particular interest in the article itself - but just as a learning method for certain Names. So please do not remove the Hitchcock meanings. Besides the consenses of the debate was Keep. Thanks.--LordGorval (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, if having access to the Hitchcock definitions is useful to you, put them up at Wikisource. There was clear consensus to remove them in the AfD. bd2412 T 11:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think all the sources provided at Bible Study Tools are useful to me. All I have to do is click on their site from the shortcut I have on my desktop. Take for example Matthew: given; a reward The other definitions at Smith's Bible Dictionary of gift of Jehovah and Easton's Bible Dictionary of gift of God I see as all meaning about the same thing (my own opinion). I have provided those references at the main article under Matthew. So keep in mind there are several meanings and sources for each Name. If you remove Hitchcock meaning, which is one of the meanings and sources, I won't replace it and won't put the other meanings and references up either. I can easily find them all at Bible Study Tools for any translating work I want to do. The article itself has no significance to me and would be absolutely no loss to me IF it were deleted. I was just helping out and volunteering to provide additional meanings and references to the Names. I'll continue no matter what happens as I have all the sources needed already. Don't need to provide them to Wikipedia to use them.--LordGorval (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention User:BD2412: As you can see by the many definitions (hundreds) and the multiple sources for each Name definition I have done so far, most of the sources have basically the same meaning for that Name, which sources are referenced at the top of each group at Bible Study Tools Library (for that letter). This is because they are all from the Christian Bible (whatever version). Different Christian Bible Dictionaries have come to the same conclusion on most of the Names - that being what Hitchcock already said in the first place. I am working on the others, however it may take me considerable time - as it appears that I am the only one looking up the definitions (which can be found at either Christian Classics Ethereal Library (for the words within each letter) or Bible Study Tools Library (already linked at the top for each letter for all the appropriate Names). I don't mind getting these additional definitions, that backs up Hitchcock's, as I am learning a little more on each of the Names. It appears there is going to be between 3 to 4 references for each of the Names, so will eventually be somewhere between 7500 and 10,000 total amount of references. IF you care to help (as it is going to take years), not only would it be appreciative, but you would also see what I am talking about. I know the Hitchcock definitions to be correct as by using them it reveals complete ancient history records, especially related to ancient Rome and the early Roman Empire. I not only see Agrippa and Augustus there as I mentioned to you before, but I see stories on Mark Antony and the Second Triumvirate and the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. Of course, this is just my opinion because I am not a "religious" person and certainly do not go by the traditional Christian religion. I just use logic and common sense and that is the way it comes out when you use the definitions provided already. I am pretty sure you don't see the connection in the Matthew definitions, I see as all meaning about the same thing, but IF you want further on this I will explain and give you details. It will not be a "religious" explanation (guaranteed), however I believe you will be able to follow it as it is just simple terms that most with a high school education can understand. Hint: what is the most valuable product you provide in your line of work?--LordGorval (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Matthew: Matthew is a gift of Jehovah. Matthew is also called Levi. Matthew is a gift of God.--LordGorval (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Genealogy of Jesus the "Genealogy of Jesus according to Luke" shows Matthat as a descendent of Levi. Looks to be correct to me, however as I pointed out before I do not go by the traditional Christian religion. I prefer to use logic and common sense. That's my "religion."--LordGorval (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Tables

I think these pages would do well to be put into a sortable table format, with one column for the term, a second for the definition, and a third identifying the chapter and verse where it can be found. bd2412 T 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of putting the "terms" into a table does not make sense to me. Most are person’s names. To have every place where particular Names occurs in the Bible with every book, chapter and verse would be overwhelming - and would serve no purpose. That’s NOT what the article is about. It is about the ‘’’meaning’’’ of the Name as the beginning paragraph points out: ‘’…is a list of about 2600 proper names with their meanings…’’ Etymology makes more sense. However, even that would be a very large task. Not sure even what purpose THAT would serve. Seems like it would be more logical to just link to that Name where the etymology is already shown (i.e Jesus, Christ, Joseph, Mary, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jeroboam, etc). Also another alternative would be to just link to the definition provided for the Name in Wiktionary or even a direct link to a Google find for the Name meaning. It looks to me like the etymology (base root origination) of most of these Names is ultimately from Hebrew, to Latin, Greek, Aramaic or Old French. For example, most sources seem to be in agreement that Christ means "anointed" or "anointed one." The Hebrew word "mashach" means "to anoint," and priests, kings, and prophets were typically commissioned to their office by the ritual of anointing, so each would be a "mashiach," or in English "messiah," meaning "an anointed one." The term "Christ" is the Greek word Khristós for "anointed one" or "masiah" from Hebrew. My Random House Dictionary defines "anoint" as: to choose formally, anoint a successor. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "anoint" is attributed to Chaucer, about 1374. According to Wiktionary apparently the word "Jesus" comes from Greek from Hebrew or Aramaic to Latin Vulgate. It means "save" or "savior." It could also mean "delivers" or "rescues" depending on the etymology you believe to be correct, according to the article on Jesus of Nazareth. You will NOT find these "terms" (definitions) in any book, chapter or verse in the Christian Bible. So your idea of making a table for the "terms" (definitions) does NOT make sense and an easier method would be just to link to the Name’s etymology (if available). Since "Christ" is a title, I interpret this then as something like: "The formally chosen one is the savior."’ Another conclusion might be from the definition of "help of Jehovah" is help from self-subsisting. The meaning of the word "subsisting" is to provide support for or to maintain. Conclusion then I see is "help of self-support" or "help of self-maintaining" or "the formally chosen one is the praise of self-support and self-maintaining oneself." Makes more sense to me than the traditional Christian religion of a god-like person needing 10% of my money that has to be given to a church of some denomination. I do NOT see an actual god-person, but only as mere word meanings, and probably would lean more toward the Christ myth theory. Each to their own belief. Based on just meanings of the Names, I also come up with ancient Roman history - whereas others come up with a god-like tale to worship. I think I am having more fun with what I am finding AND it requires no money! If others want to give away their money, so be it. I say they are just lazy and wish others to think for them and are willing to pay money for that, than to be self-supportive and self-thinkers. The Name meanings are all there, in detail!

Note that the first dozen or so major English translations of the N.T. through KJV says it is the ‘’’generation’’’ of Jesus Christ, NOT the "genealogy" of Jesus Christ. The Darby bible of 1890 also says this. It wasn’t until about the twentieth century that the word "genealogy" enters into the translations by those that want to believe in a person. It seems that most biblical dictionaries say that the definition of Jesus is "savior." Jesus (Aramaic from of the Old Testament name Joshua, from *Jo* = "Jahweh" and *(ye)shua* = "saves") was a very common name in first century CE Palestine. I tend to agree that it is the generation of Jesus Christ, since that makes more sense than the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Both are NOT the same thing! The meanings of biblical names are usually based on a simple translation of the name from Hebrew (e.g., Abijah = "Jahweh is my father [or Lord]," because in Hebrew *abi* means "my father" and *jah* is short for Jahweh [or Lord], with the "to be" verb understood). Other times meanings are based on a resemblance between the spelling of a name and a Hebrew word or phrase. I believe that biblical names served as mere labels and meant little more than what one would find in a modern book on the meaning of contemporary names (thus, Theodore = "gift of God," from the Greek words *theo* (god) and *doron* (gift), or reverse it for the female version and get Dorothy.--LordGorval (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be absurd to list every occurrence of each name. However, in order for this list to verifiably contain biblical names, we should at least list an example of biblical use. Perhaps the first and last instance of each name. Putting them in tables would also let us to make them sortable. bd2412 T 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• A) Are you saying that the list in each of the letters (even though individually referenced) might NOT contain biblical names? Would they be Names from someplace else then? Where?
• B) Not clear what you mean the first and last instance of each name - give an example of how you mean.
• C) What would be the purpose of making them sortable? Wouldn't it be easier just to type "Jesus" (for example, or any biblical Name) into a database like BibleGateWay that's designed for that purpose?--LordGorval (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe I adequately demonstrated in the AfD of this page that there are names on the list which appear nowhere in the Bible. They may be individually referenced to interpretive texts, but that does not mean that all can actually be referenced to the Bible itself (which is the defining text of this list). With respect to BibleGateWay, why would we want to refer people off-wiki if we are capable of providing that information here. bd2412 T 22:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• A) There are about 2600 words to the List of Biblical Names. 1% would be 26. Please show me 12 (less than ½ %) Names that are NOT in the Bible. I can predict that you can NOT furnish this list. You will either give some excuse or NOT respond to the question - as you can not show that there is even that many. IF there are problems here with these being not Biblical Names and you are making such a big deal of this, THEN this is your opportunity to put you money where you mouth is. Otherwise it is just a bunch of wind!

1. ______ 2. ______ 3. ______

4. _______ 5. _______ 6. _______

7. _______ 8. _______ 9. _______

10. ______ 11. ______ 12. ______

• B) You are going to have to be more clear on what you mean the first and last instance of each name - please give an example of how you mean. Don’t weasel out on the question and give me some doubletalk. IF you have a problem with this you will have to be specific (details please).

• C) Don’t weasel out on this question either or otherwise people will not take your idea of sortability seriously: What would be the purpose of making them sortable? The lists are already in alphabetical order with each set of Names in its appropriate letter.

Further on the "generation" of Jesus Christ. It seems that you are proud of the fact you have over 200,000 edits that show up in your name. Apparently you take pride in this and it is a personal achievement where you wish others to praise you for your self-accomplishments where you did this by yourself (self-help, self-support). The definition of "generation" is to bring into existence, originate, produce: to generate ideas. A definition of "son" could be descendent. David = well-beloved. Abraham = father of a great multitude. Matthew 1:1 reads: "This is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son also of Abraham." The way I would interpret this (amplifying on previous above information) using just the definitions of the words involved is: "This is the record of the product of the formally chosen one as the praise of self- accomplishments (self-support), the descendent of well-beloved (pride), the descendent also of the father of a great multitude (200,000+)." Makes more sense to me than a god-like myth. There is no way the first line of the New Testament should even have come close to what we have been talking about the last couple of days - however to me it looks like it comes real close! Perhaps just a coincidence or perhaps I was lucky the definitions of the words worked right into our conversation. Definitely NOT religion.--LordGorval (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My wife once told me of a coworker in her shipping department (years ago, when she was a secretary in that department) who asked their manager what was the maximum number of errors they could make per form. You can imagine the look that person got from the manager. We, too, should strive for complete correctness, and should take the steps necessary to insure this. Regarding the "first and last mention", for Jericho, for example, the first mention occurs at Numbers 22:1 (NIV), and the last occurs at Joshua 7:2 (NIV). I guess first instance alone would be fine, although doing it this way also shows that the name is confined to the OT. If we do this, then sortability would allow people to view a given list in order of the appearance of those names in the Bible (or, which names first appear in which books of the Bible), and alphabetically by meaning, where meanings are offered. bd2412 T 21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• A) My prediction came true. I guess the biblical Names are at least 99 ⁴⁴/₁₀₀% pure then.
• B) I don’t see any advantages in the definitions of the Names based on your logic of sortability.
• C) same as above in B as it doesn’t make sense to me. You’ll have to be clearer on your answer.

Further on the "generation" of Jesus Christ. Another definition of Jesus is "deliverer." Another interpretation of Matthew 1:1 might be (in my opinion): "This is the record of the product of the formally chosen one as the deliverer of self- accomplishments, the descendent of pride, the descendent also of the originator and creator of a great multitude (of articles)." I guess I am really lucky that the definitions of the words involved just happen to fit to our conversation - or would you say just coincidence?--LordGorval (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Further on Matthew: gift of Jehovah, Also called LEVI. Jehovah = self-subsisting. Levi = associated with him. Based on the definitions of the words involved I see Matthew as "gift of self-support" or possible "gift of self-motivation" and it is associated with him. It would be like a person that has a reputation of being a self motivated person. Perhaps you know of such a person - they are rare.--LordGorval (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Further on Matthew 1:2 - Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Iacob, and Iacob begat Iudas and his brethren. Definition of "begat" is pt of "beget" = to generate, to cause, to produce as an effect. A definition of this verse might be: Originator and creator of a great multitude (of articles) caused laughter and happiness, which caused one followed by another, which caused celebration and associated.--LordGorval (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the genealogy of Jesus. Obviously every name listed in the genealogy is easily citable to the portions of the Bible where those occur. I am not disputing that. Of course, there are thousands of names on these lists that have nothing to do with the genealogy, and those require evidence of their Biblical occurrence to belong here. What possible good could it do to avoid providing such evidence? bd2412 T 03:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you missed the part where I pointed out that the first English editions of the New Testament says it is the generation of Jesus Christ, NOT the genealogy. These transliterations I am pointing out is the way I see the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew using the definitions determined by Roswell Dwight Hitchcock, William Smith, Matthew George Easton, Orville Nave and others, that they have determined from years of research of the etymology of the biblical Name. I am just using their final determinations of the definitions (i.e. Hebrew, Greek, Latin meaning) of the word. I just don't see it through the traditional Christian viewpoint (i.e. "genealogy"), but only through the actual definitions of the biblical Names and words. I am just showing an application of these biblical Name definitions. It is NOT religion and certainly NOT Christianity.

Further on Matthew 1:3 - Judas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram. A definition of this verse might be: Celebration produced praise and brightness of number one, and praise caused dart of joy, and this joy caused magnificence.--LordGorval (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew 4 And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
A definition of this verse might be: And magnificence caused my people are favorable to progress, which caused a person who delights, which caused perfect,

Matthew 5 And Salmon begat Boos of Rachab, and Boos begate Obed of Ruth, and Obed begate Iesse.
A definition of this verse might be: And perfect caused in strength of large, which caused a servant or workman of friend, which caused an act of offering his services,

Matthew 6 And Iesse begate Dauid the King, & Dauid the King begat Solomon of her that had bin the wife of Urias.
A definition of this verse might be: And an act of offering his services caused pride of greatness, which caused paid back of it that was the companion of inspiration.

Matthew 7 And Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begate Abia, and Abia begate Asa.
A definition of this verse might be: And paid back caused commotion, which caused the master is my origination (of ideas), which caused solution to problem.

Matthew 8 And Asa begate Josaphat, and Josaphat begate Joram, and Joram begate Ozias.
A definition of this verse might be: And solution to problem caused whom self motivation judges, causing that which self motivation has promoted,

Matthew 9 And Ozias begat Joatham, and Joatham begate Achas, and Achas begate Ezekias.
A definition of this verse might be: And that which self motivation has promoted caused self motivation is honorable, which caused one that possesses, which caused the strength of goodness.

Matthew 10 And Ezekias begate Manasses, and Manasses begate Amon, and Amon begate Josias.
A definition of this verse might be: And the strength of goodness caused the greatness of praised and celebrated, which caused the mysterious, which caused self motivation improves.

Matthew 11 And Josias begate Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were caried away to Babylon. {Iosias…: some read, Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias}
A definition of this verse might be: And improvement causes which self motivation has appointed and its related, who gathers the people together, which self motivation establishes, about the time they are carried away to the gate of goodness.--LordGorval (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it is that you want to show has absolutely nothing to do with whether we require citations to the Bible for names that are not in the genealogy, or whether we put these names in a table. Can you explain your objection to requiring citations to the Bible? bd2412 T 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The definitions of these Names will NOT be found in the Bible. They will be found in their etymology. The Names WILL be found in the Bible, but their definitions will NOT. As far as I know , there are no actual definitions of these Names in the Bible. The Names are used in the Bible, however the research to find the Name's definition is its etymology. One would have to know Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to get their meanings and definitions. The Names could go in a table, however the place where it is in the Bible (O.T. + N.T.) would not relate to the theme of the article, which is: ...their meanings... The Names are in the Bible, NOT their meanings. Am I understanding your question properly?--LordGorval (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not looking for citations to the definitions in the Bible. I would like citations to demonstrate that the names exist in the Bible at all. Most of the names on these lists are only used once or twice in the Bible, so it would be helpful to researchers if we could point them to chapter and verse, particularly for such names. bd2412 T 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The citations to demonstrate that the names exist in the Bible are already at each Name. Take Abigail (the father's joy) for example. In reference #70 it shows Hitchcock. In that reference it shows [N], [E], [S]; which of course stands for Nave's Topical Bible, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Smith's Bible Dictionary. Clicking on these further references gives further Chapter and Verse. This is "Bible Study Tools" reference, which along with "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" reference, all the Names can be found. Within C.C.E.L. is a box at the right labled "Other Dictionaries", where the Name can be further found (usually with Chapter and Verse), usually along with the Catholic Encyclopedia reference and the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge [Dictionary edition]. All the Names can be found in either the "Bible Study Tools" reference or the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" reference - which most Names are already referenced. I don't believe Hitchcock, Smith, Easton nor Nave snuck in any additional Names that are NOT in the Bible. They all look like reputable biblical scholars to me with great reputations. Besides most of these reference sources were written up in differenct decades, however most can be cross referenced to another or several others. They all came to the same conclusion or nearly so for the definitions. Now as a heavy duty researcher myself, as you can see by the first 11 verses I interpreted of Matthew, I didn't need to know where else in the Bible these Names are located; I just needed to know the definition. Now as you can see these 11 verses make sense and are congruent to each other and are related in some manner to each other and as a whole. What is more important is the eytmology. So to me, a table as you describe makes no sense and would serve no purpose. Do you care to take a stab at 12 of these Names you don't think are actually in the Bible? It would be like a court trial, where the Plantiff is accusing the Defendant of a crime - but saying he has no proof. He is just accusing the Defendant on a hunch. How fast would the case be thrown out?--LordGorval (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew 12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begate Zorobabel.
And after they were brought to the gate of goodness, which self-motivation establishes it caused I have asked of goodness, which caused born at gate of goodness.

Matthew 13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, and Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begate Azor.
Born at gate of goodness caused father of praise, which caused resurrection of goodness, which caused it that assists.

Matthew 14. And Azor begat Sadoc, & Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud.
It that assists caused just and righteous, which caused preparing, which caused goodness is my praise.

Matthew 15. And Eliud begate Eleazar, and Eleazar begate Matthan, and Matthan begate Iacob.
Goodness is my praise caused help of goodness, which caused gifts.

Matthew 16. And Jacob begate Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was borne Jesus, who is called Christ.
And one after another caused additional, the connection to uprising, of which was born the deliverer (of ideas), which is called the formally selected one.--LordGorval (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BOTH my predictions came true.

*1) First you gave an excuse when I asked you to show me 12 Names you ‘’thought’’ might NOT in the Bible.

*2) Second you did NOT respond when I asked you a second time to furnish a list of 12 Names that you ‘’thought’’ were NOT in the Bible.

Even IF you could find 12 Names you think are NOT in the Bible (of course I would verify), the list is STILL 99 ⁴⁴/₁₀₀% pure biblical Names that CAN be verified as being in the Bible. While there may be ‘’some’’ Names that are in the Bible just a couple of times, the Names I refer to (mostly from the N.T.) in research I personally do, are listed several times in the Bible. Each letter has at the top of the Names: See Bible Study Tools Library or Christian Classics Ethereal Library or Smith's Bible Dictionary or Easton's Bible Dictionary for additional definitions and Biblical sources. Your idea of a Table as you have described does NOT make sense as all the references needed are already provided (most several times).--LordGorval (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Split

Page is currently broken due to it's size. If you need help with the split leave me a message. Note: To comply with GFDL leave a note in the edit summary saying where it was split from. Also I suggest moving the parent/disambiguation article to Lists of... Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

Article has been split to the letters of the alphabet, so the problems pertaining to it previous very large size have been solved.--LordGorval (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking that we should fold Q into P, List of Biblical names starting with P-Q. bd2412 T 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to MOS An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. The trend of the article is individual letters, where NONE have been combined with any others. IF you combined "Q" with "P", it would then be at the end of "P" and those definitions would more that likely get lost in confusion. I believe it should be individual letters with no combining, mostly for simplicity of understanding. I think being most consistent is more important. Besides this is simpler and less confusing.--LordGorval (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, it's just that Q is such a short page. bd2412 T 22:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion limit breakage

The explosion in the number of transcluded templates has broken template rendering on this page due to the number of templates appearing on it.

Splitting it would be a way to handle that. (or replace {{citation needed}} with {{unreferenced section}} )

76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Application

Below is my interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew as I personally see it, which is using the definitions and meanings of the biblical Names and words provided in the article. It is NOT religious and certainly NOT Christianity. It turns out to be a very important piece of greatly recorded ancient history. Wikipedia has this important ancient history that is over 100,000 characters long, counting all the associated articles. The ancient history has nothing to do with the Christian person Jesus Christ, Bethlehem or Jerusalem. (Nice hint: Nothing to do with Babylon either - but does rhyme with it). All I am doing is using the definitions of the biblical Names from the article and the meanings of bible words used and applying them to discover history. The period of this much recorded famous history uncovered is about 70 years and has two words. (Clue: The Wise men from the East in Matthew 2:1 were NOT from the Far East.).

Matthew 1:1 - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
This is the record of the product of the formally chosen one as the savior, the descendent of pride, the descendent also of the originator and creator of a great multitude.

Matthew 1:2 - Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Iacob, and Iacob begat Iudas and his brethren.
Originator and creator of a great multitude caused laughter and happiness, which caused one followed by another, which caused celebration and associated.

Matthew 1:3 - Judas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
Celebration produced praise and brightness of number one, and praise caused dart of joy, and this joy caused magnificence.

Matthew 1:4 And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
And magnificence caused my people are favorable to progress, which caused a person who delights, which caused perfect,

Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Boos of Rachab, and Boos begate Obed of Ruth, and Obed begat Jesse.
And perfect caused in strength of large, which caused a servant or workman of friend, which caused an act of offering his services,

Matthew 1:6 And Iesse begate Dauid the King, & Dauid the King begat Solomon of her that had bin the wife of Urias.
And an act of offering his services caused pride of greatness, which caused paid back of it that was the companion of inspiration.

Matthew 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begate Abia, and Abia begate Asa.
And paid back caused commotion, which caused the master is my origination, which caused solution to problem.

Matthew 1:8 And Asa begate Josaphat, and Josaphat begate Joram, and Joram begate Ozias.
And solution to problem caused whom self motivation judges, causing that which self motivation has promoted,

Matthew 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham, and Joatham begate Achas, and Achas begate Ezekias.
And that which self motivation has promoted caused self subsisting is honorable, which caused one that possesses, which caused the strength of goodness.

Matthew 1:10 And Ezekias begate Manasses, and Manasses begate Amon, and Amon begate Josias.
And the strength of goodness caused the greatness of praised and celebrated, which caused the mysterious, which caused self motivation improves.

Matthew 1:11 And Josias begate Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And improvement causes which self motivation has appointed and its related, who gathers the people together, which self subsisting establishes, about the time they are carried away to confusion.

Matthew 1:12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begate Zorobabel.
And after they were brought to confusion, which self-motivation established it caused them to have asked of goodness, which caused born at confusion.

Matthew 1:13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, and Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begate Azor.
Born at confusion caused father of praise, which caused resurrection of goodness, which caused it that assists.

Matthew 1:14. And Azor begat Sadoc, & Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud.
It that assists caused just and righteous, which caused preparing, which caused goodness is my praise.

Matthew 1:15. And Eliud begate Eleazar, and Eleazar begate Matthan, and Matthan begate Iacob.
Goodness is my praise caused help of goodness, which caused gifts.

Matthew 1:16. And Jacob begate Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was borne Jesus, who is called Christ.
And one being replaced by another through a special arrangement caused additional, the counterpart as bitterness, of which was born the savior (self-subsisting saves or self-subsisting has saved or a safety place), which was called the formally selected one.

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations: and from David until the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, are fourteen generations.
So all the creations from originator of a great multitude to well beloved, are fourteen creations: and from well beloved until the carrying away into confusion, are fourteen creations: and from the carrying away into confusion unto the formally selected one, are fourteen creations.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph (before they came together) she was found with child of the holy spirit.
Now the birth of the formally selected one, the savior, was on this understanding: When as its originator, the bitterness was advocated to be additional (before it came together) it was found with the beginnings of logic and common sense.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.
Then the additional, its counterpart being a just thing, and not willing to make it a public situation, was complied to put it away in a private place.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (begotten) in her, is of the holy spirit.
But while there was thought on these things, take note that the attendant of goodness of self reliance appeared unto them in an inspiration, indicating the additional of descendant of well beloved should not fear to take unto itself the bitterness of its counterpart: for that which has come about is of logic and common sense.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
And the counterpart shall bring forth a descendant, and they shall call its name the savior: for it shall save its people from their doing wrong.

Matthew 1:22 All this was done to fulfill that which was spoken of the lord, by the prophet saying:
All this was done to fulfill that which was spoken of the supreme power, by the predictor saying:

Matthew 1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel, which is as much to say, by interpretation, as God with us.
Behold an unused one shall be with a new one, and shall bring forth a descendant, and they shall call its name Emanuel, which is as much to say, by interpretation, "with us is the salvation of the supreme power" or "with us is the strength of the supreme power" or "with us is the salvation of one that possesses. "

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had bidden him, & took unto him his wife:
Then the additional, being raised from dormancy, did as the attendant of goodness of self reliance had bid it to do and took unto it the counterpart:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not, till she had brought forth her first borne son, and he called his name Jesus.
And knew it not, until the counterpart had brought forth its first born descendant, and they called its name the savior (safety).

Matthew 2:1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the time of king Herod. Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
When the savior was born in the house of bread ( "house of struggle" ) of the praise of self reliance, in the time of overlord as descendant of a hero, take note that there came wise men from the east to a vision of peace.

Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is borne King of the Jewes? for we have seen his Star in the East, and are come to worship him.
Saying, Where is it that is born overlord of the supreme power? for we have seen its brilliance in the east and have come to honor it.

Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
When descendant of a role model (imitation), the overlord, had heard these things, it was troubled, and all vision of peace with it.

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief Priests and Scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be borne.
And when it had gathered all the chief Priests and Scribes (entourage) of the people together, it demanded of them where the formally chosen one should be brought forth.

Matthew 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: For thus it is written by the Prophet;
And they conveyed unto it, In the "house of struggle" of the praise of the supreme power: For thus it is written by the one that predicts the future;

Matthew 2:6 And thou Bethlehem in the land of Iuda, art not the least among the Princes of Juda: for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. {rule: or, feed}
And you "house of struggle" (confrontation and conflict) in the land of the praise of the supreme power, are not the least among the Princes of the praise of the supreme power: for out of you shall come a director, that shall rule my people who prevails with goodness.

Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privately called the Wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the Star appeared:
Then descendant of a role model (imitator), when it had privately called the Wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the brilliant one appeared:

Matthew 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go, and search diligently for the young child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
And it sent them to "house of struggle", and said, Go, and search diligently for the young new one, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and honor him also.

Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the King, they departed, and loe, the Star which they saw in the East, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
When they had heard the imitation, they departed, and behold, the brilliant one which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young new one was.

Matthew 2:10 When they saw the Star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
When they saw the brilliant one, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. {presented: or, offered}
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young new one with bitterness, its originator, and fell down, and gave honor to it: and when they had opened their treasures, they offered unto it gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (princely items)

Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
And being warned of goodness in a dream, that they should not return to descendant of a role model (imitator), they departed into their own sovereign another way.

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child, and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child, to destroy him.
And when they were departed, behold, the messenger of the supreme power appeared to additional in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young new one, and its originator, and flee into anguish, and be you there until I bring you word: for descendant of a role model (imitator) will seek the young new one to destroy him.

Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
When it arose, it took the young new one and its originator by obscurity and departed into anguish:

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
And was there until the death of descendant of a role model (imitator), that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the supreme power by the one that predicts the future, saying, out of anguish have I called my descendant.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when hee saw that he was mocked of the Wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and killed all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time, which he had diligently inquired of the Wise men.
Then descendant of a role model (imitator), when it saw that it was mocked by the Wise men, was exceeding angry, and sent forth, and killed all the new ones that were in the place of conflict and controversy, and in all the surrounding areas thereof, from two times and under, according to the time, which it had diligently inquired of the Wise men.

Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremie the Prophet, saying,
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by which self subsisting had appointed as the one that predicts the future, saying,

Matthew 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
In Rome was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, an ewe weeping for her new ones, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
But when descendant of a role model (imitator) was dead, behold, a messenger of the supreme power appeared in a dream to additional in anguish,

Matthew 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.
Saying, Arise, and take the young new one and its originator, and go into the land of the prince that prevails with goodness: for they are dead which sought the young new one’s life.

Matthew 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
And it arose, and took the young new one and its originator, and came into the land of the prince that prevails with goodness.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
But when it heard that the prince of the people did reign in praise in the room of its father, descendant of a role model (imitator), it was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of goodness in a dream, it turned aside into the parts of the district:

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
And it came and dwelt in a city called sanctified and separated (branch); that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the ones that make predictions, It shall be called a separate chosen one.

Jesus could be "self-subsisting saves", "self-subsisting is salvation", "has saved", or "safety" according to the definitions.--LordGorval (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to be having this discussion. If you intend to discuss the meaning of the name, "Jesus", the proper place to do so is Jesus (name). If your point is to discuss the genealogy of Jesus, the place to do that is Genealogy of Jesus. bd2412 T 01:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is NOT to discuss the "Genealogy of Jesus", but to show that if you apply the definitions and meanings of the biblical Names and words in the article you discover other stories altogether - which has nothing to do with Christianity or any religion. It has to do with real ancient history that is well documented. In this case in Matthew it has to do with a famous piece of history that volumes have been written about, which spans a period of time in history of about 70 years. In fact it is so famous that it has been given a historical name - that rhymes with Babylon. Chapter 2 has nothing to do with the "generation of Jesus" and has more clues as to what this history is all about. In fact these transliterations I am showing from KJV is that "Jesus" is not a person, but an item. But to discover what that item is, you will have to look over chapter 2 a little closer as there are many more hints there - especially Matthew 2:18. Another big clue is the definition of Egypt (especially the hieroglyphs).--LordGorval (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The definition of Egypt as "that troubles or oppresses" and "anguish" certainly applys, however the hieroglyphs definition is a bigger clue to the item.--LordGorval (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it appears that you are using this talk page as a place to set forth original research. bd2412 T 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize that was incorrect for a talk page. I won't give you any additional chapters then nor tell you that the new ones are old ones. I believe I do have all the Biblical names in the article properly referenced. I was just taking the definitions of the Names and words literally.--LordGorval (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in Wikipedia on the List of Biblical Names and your inspirations that have opened up new chapters for me. I am seeing things I never saw before using the Biblical Name definitions and meanings of the words used in the scriptures. Maybe someday I can return the favor.--LordGorval (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Related sayings

We generally don't have lists of quotes in Wikipedia articles. We have an entire project, Wikiquote, for that. bd2412 T 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, however I feel they are related to the article and are referenced accordingly. IF you feel some or all are inappropriate - then just remove.--LordGorval (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize you could do it that way. Thanks for help.--LordGorval (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to add additional quotes, you can add them right to the Wikiquote page. We don't use ref tags on Wikiquote, so just follow the formatting as it appears there. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

List of Biblical names → List of biblical names — Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents: "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized." Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• List of minor Biblical tribes → List of minor biblical tribes
• List of major Biblical figures → List of major biblical figures

Note: Also, List of Biblical names starting with A through Z to move to List of biblical names starting with A through Z.

• Support per WP:MOSCAPS and WP:TITLE. Move them all. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Have now moved List of biblical names starting with A through Z--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Have moved the last 2 (tribes and figures); could not move List of Biblical names over redirect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support The dictionary to hand (Collins Concise) has biblical with a lowercase b. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• The move is done. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitchcock is an unreliable source

As another editor (User:BD2412 has noticed above, Roswell Dwight Hitchcock (a 19th century clergyman and professor) just isn't a reliable source on the meanings of biblical names. Many of the definitions given here in the List are wild speculations, and just don't show up in reliable sources produced in the last hundred years. I'm not planning on mass-removing the names from Hitchcock -- though it would be entirely justified if someone did -- but when I find a more modern, reliable source that differs from Hitchcock, I'm going to add what the modern scholarly source says and use it to replace what Hitchcock said. No recent biblical scholar would ever cite Hitchcock as support for an etymology, and Hitchcock doesn't provide any support for his etymological proposals. He doesn't even indicate what Hebrew, Greek, or other words he's working from in coming up with this stuff.Alephb (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A while after this, I wound up stripping the Hitchcock etymologies out. The various links all lead to articles where the etymologies can be better discussed, using reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)