Talk:Behemoth
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behemoth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | The article Adam Muraszko was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 September 2014 with a consensus to merge the content into Behemoth. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}. |
Question about reliable source edit
A recent edit was reverted because it cited something which was not a reliable resource. I have no problem with calling a creationist not a reliable resource on a fact, but - as I understand it - the creationist was cited as being a reliable resource on there being creationists who believe such-and-such. Or is this a case of "original research" - that one must cite for belief in such and such, not someone who believes it, but a secondary, reliable source which says "there are people who believe this"? Guidance and clarification are welcome. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Chaos monsters destroyed at creation? edit
"Both beasts are chaos monsters destroyed by the deity at the time of creation, although such a conflict is not found in the Genesis creation narrative." Where does this claim come from? I don't see this in the description in Job, the book appears to describe them as contemporaries of Job. This doesn't seem to fit with the description here of later Jewish writings either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.246.140 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that this quote comes from jordan peterson's description of the story of job, but it should be removed, since it's not cited and is an idiosyncratic interpretation.Gillesdeleuze13 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The bit in question cites Iwanski, Darius (2006). The dynamics of Job's intercession. Biblical Institute Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-88-7653-161-3. If Peterson lifted our phrasing, that's his credibility's problem, not ours. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Elephant monster listed at Redirects for discussion edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elephant monster. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Behemah edit
Behemoth is obviously (for me at least) related to בְּהֵמָה, in agreement with this Wikitionary entry. 188.218.87.87 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The beast of Revelation is nowhere implied to be the Behemoth edit
The early parts of this article claim this. Also, the mentioned "Thessalonians 2:8" lines up with neither the first nor second book of Thessalonians, and is surely not correct. 163.53.144.1 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)