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)Reply

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)Reply


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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply