Talk:Biblical archaeology/Archive of Talk:Christian archaeology

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

Archaeology

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles

Many of these are poor examples because of proven forgeries. There are many legitimate sites with possible biblical links that can be used. Also, I would suggest that the title be changed to "Biblical Archaeology" which is the common name and correct spelling (archeology is used only by the government printing office). The name Christian Archeology is misleading and far too general. I don't know how to change the title of the article myself. Sheora 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very biased. It treats Theides' theory regarding the manuscript of Matthew as authoritative, when in fact almost all scholars reject it and most other experts in ancient manuscripts do not come to the conclusion that the manuscript is anywhere near as old as he claims. If this proposal should be mentioned at all it should certainly be with a large dose of skepticism. And the ossuary of James the Just was a forgery, see wikipedia's page on James the Just. -KC

Proposing fusion with Biblical archaeology. Greetings from ptwiki. --84.132.213.102 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to more common name?

The article begins with the statement that this is more commonly known as Biblical archeology. if that is how it is more commonly known, the article should be moved. If that statement is incorrect, it should be removed. Seeking views on this issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That opening statement is correct, as is your assessment. Since there's already an article at Biblical archaeology, I've proposed the merger of the two, under that name. Merenta (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the approved protocol for discussion of such a move is that it is to take place on the Talk page of the article that is to be merged into, Biblical archaeology in this case, please discuss this proposal at Talk:Biblical archaeology. Thanks. Merenta (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every item in this article is also covered in Biblical archaeology and references therein, and that page has a much more NPOV wording. For that reason I'm redirecting this article to that page without adding anything but a few references. Merenta (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]