Talk:Gehenna

Separate modern geographical term "Valley of Hinnom" from unidentified biblical valley & theology!!!

As it is now, one who looks for information about what is there now, in what all maps & guide books call "the Valley of Hinnom", gets almost nothing on this page.

History-Prehistory

It is so good to see such civil learned debate on this subject, but what seems lacking is a touch of non religious basis for Gehenna. Notably the fact that the valley outside Jerusalem called Gehenna was in "pagan" times used as a sacrificial site. This association of a place of death?terror?sarcrafice, was later established as a municipal rubbish tip and as we all know biodegrading rubbish tends to burn continually...... rather interesting then that all pre-Gehenna concepts of Hell tended to be "icy" places, rather than firy places. I am so relieved as an atheist that Hell is now closed for business, or at least it is closed for everything other than archaeological research.

Richard

Rubbish Bin

The wikipedia article on Ketef Hinnom states that the famous silver scrolls found there were part of a "rubbish bin." If this is correct, this certainly qualifies as an example of archaeological evidence confirming the "trash heap" explanation for the sites identification with "Gehenna/damnation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.20.142 (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Seeing as the Arabic version is Jahannom, is the G in Gehenna a soft G? My Hebrew's a bit rusty.

No, in Hebrew it's a hard G. Arabic regularly has a soft G when Hebrew has a hard G, except in Egyptian pronunciation where it's also hard.Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we add other pronunciations for English? I looked online and found three, Jehanna, Gehanna and Yehenna. Volunteer1234 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Old Testament

I'd like to suggest that you change the term "old testament" to Tanach. "old testament" implies that g-d has changed his promise to the Israelites. It's offensive to any jew.

thanks.

I'd like to just say, regarding the offended jew above, the word "Gehenna" appears something like 13 times in the Christian New Testement, yet doesn't appear at all in the "Tanach", being that it's a greek word. Therefore, a discussion about the word Gehenna will likely draw more Christian interest than Jewish interest, and therefore Christian terms such as "old testament" are likely to be used. If that is so offensive to you, I would suggest that you avoid topics that might be of interest to Jews and Christians alike, and stick to things that pertain only to jews.

thanks.

Wow, who is this guy that wrote the 2nd paragraph here? What makes you think the person who wrote the first paragraph is Jewish? You are reading alot into his words by thinking that. That might make you want to reconsider you Biblical exegesis skills, don't you think? It doesn't seem your textual analysis is very rigourous, but a bit more inductive-reasoning based. In any event, the point the person was making, it seems, is that the term "Old Testament" is not neutral, and should say "Christian Old Testament." It's a question of presumption - harvardlawgrad@hotmail.com

just check the word GOD. it was writen as G-D.... you get it?

I'm that guy that wrote the 2nd paragraph, and it doesn't take a "harvardlawgrad" to know that Jews spell God G-d. Your argument was so well formed too, you pulled out the exegesis and everything.

To The Guy Who Wrote Second Parapraph,

You're being needlessly abrasive. The original poster had a issue and brought it up in a respectful way. You simply dismissed his concerns and essentially told them to "keep their nose out of it." This is simply unacceptable. Yes, 'Gehenna' is a Greek word but so too is 'Christ' which is translated from the Hebrew word 'Messiah.' It would be reasonable for a Jew to object to the useage of the word 'Christ' when talking about Yeshua if they didn't believe He was the Messiah. Even though the word 'Christ' appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. It's that simple. Jews have a right to express how they feel their holy text should be refrenced. From there all parties should come to a compromise. While I happen to be familiar with the word 'Tanakh' many non-Jews are not. I therefore suggest 'Hebrew Bible.'

-Selderane

Christ = Greek, messiah = Hebrew, Anointed = English. No difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.255 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanna say on behalf of the Jesus people that nobody I know thinks of 'Old' in Old Testament as meaning outdated, changed, or anything like that. Teh good Lord didn't change his promise or anything, just finished it up. We love you guys :) Shalom.

changed some language

I changed some language. While I'm frankly a freethinker with no spiritual belief whatsover, we should avoid offending anyone's beliefs. Hopefully the changes are OK.

dino 05:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) I would put both names because, some might not know what the Tanakh is. Or put Hebrew Scriptures. By the way no Christian believes God changed his promises.

User:Chad A. Woodburn 11:50, June 12, 2006 While it is true that we should not intentionally and maliciously seek to offend anyone, it is naive to think that a controversial subject like this that is being discussed cross-culturally could be written in such a way that people would not be offended. (We will never get anywhere though in these discussions if everyone keeps wearing their feelings on their sleeve, looking for every opportunity they can find to be offended and become the victim.) If the Christian view about Gehenna is being discussed, then the label Old Testament is not only proper, it is preferred, since that is what they lovingly call it. To call it Tanakh in the section about the Jewish view of Gehenna would likewise be the right thing. However, since Gehenna is the Greek term found in the Christian New Testament, the use of Christian vocabulary throughout is appropriate.

Place of condemnation?

Is it, in fact, true that Jews of Jesus' time would have regarded references to Gehenna as general references to a place of condemnation and damnation -- that is, as analogies for Hell? I have read exactly the opposite elsewhere, that Jesus' references to Gehenna were not meant to indicate any eternal place of damnation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.85.177 (talk • contribs) .

Most of Christianity's ideas of Hell come from Orpheistic religions and from Mithraism, not from Judaism, despite the fact that the imagery has been anachronistically placed on the Bible's mention of Gehinnom. Tomer^talk 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah, suuure they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. My understanding is that the Jews would have regarded Gehenna as exactly what Gehenna was, a garbage dump outside Jerusalem where the bodies of executed criminals were burned. Any sources for your claim that the Jews regarded Gehenna as referring to a place of eternal punishment?

The Talmud refers to Gehenna as a place of torment where the wicked are punished temporarily before being burned up altogether. Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Gehenna (geena) is literally translated as "Valley of Ben Hinnon", which was a garbage dump located directly outside of Jerusalem. When Jesus used it in the NT, it NEVER meant an afterlife punishment. It meant sort of like "hell on earth, right here, right now" because it was a place that all the Jews knew about, and in the teachings that went along with this term, it meant whatever you did to warrant this word's usage, Gehenna was what you were worthy of at that time. Whenever the NT refers to the afterlife place where departed souls go for punishment, there is a different word used. That other word is "Hades" in the Greek.LivingDedGrrl 17:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)LivingDedGrrl 11 February 2007, 12:15 pm.

In and of that time, yes: the jews did believe that Gehenna was in essence "hell on earth." But in modern rabinic tradition, it is veiwed as a place of purification of the soul before it can move on. I believe according to one Hasidic rabbi that lives near me that the actual period of Shiva is equal to the maximum amount of time one can spend in Gehenna

As with most garbage dumps, there was methane gas venting and when lit to help eliminate odors, would burn until the gas stopped. This lead to the analogy to hell.Septagram (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the comment about "Hades", there are places in the NT where it is commonly translated as "grave", and this would seem the only translation that fits in the context. Being consistent and swapping the occurances where "Hades" is translated as "hell" for "grave" strangely seems to fit the context well. But perhaps I'm being too radical. Pual160 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In the canonical Christian gospels, when Jesus refers to "Gehenna", he is talking about the garbage dump outside Jerusalem and that is how his contemporaries would have understood his words. In each of those passages (Matthew 18:8-9, Mark 9:43, Mark 9:48), Jesus quotes Old Testament (Tanakh) passages about annihilation of the wicked from "a fire that does not/cannot be put out". If you are interested in a thorough analysis of New Testament references to "hell", I refer you to Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Hell and The End of the Unrepentant: A Study of the Biblical Themes of Fire and Being Consumed both by J. Webb Mealy. Tony Lewis (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Jewish usage of Gehenna

Without going into how the Jews of New Testement days may have understood the term, Gehenna is clearly an important term in Rabbinic Judaism. Otzar Ha'agada, a standard reference in Hebrew to the sacred literature of Judaism (Talmud, midrash, etc.), published by Mossad Harav Kook, lists 160 entries under Gan Eden v'Gehinnom, a good fraction of which relate to Gehinnom, that is Gehenna. The term has also used down the centuries in Jewish popular culture; see for example the short story "Ne'ilah in Gehenna" by I. L. Peretz.Davidhof 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleh. Please see Ge-Hinnom. Tomer^talk 07:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ge-Hinnom

Would anyone object to merging with Ge-Hinnom? They seem to be discussing the same subject-matter. Tewfik^Talk 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I merged the articles. Here's the text of the Ge-Hinnom piece:

Ge-Hinnom is the name of the valley to the south and south-west of Jerusalem (Josh. 15:8, 18:16; Neh. 11:30; II Kings 23:10; II Chronicles|II Chron. 33:6; Jer. 7:31 ff., 19:2, 32:35). Its Arabic name is Wadi al-Rababah. The southwestern gate of the city, overlooking the valley, came to be known as "The Gate of the Valley". The valley was notorious for the worship of Moloch conducted there (comp. Jer. 2:23). According to Jer. 7:31 ff., 19:6 ff., it was to be turned into a place of burial; hence "the accursed valley Ge-hinnom" ("Gehenna" in the N. T.) came to be synonymous with a place of punishment, and thus with Hell (comp. Isa. 66:24; Enoch 26 ff.; and the Mishnaic Hebrew equivalent).

I believe that the article may still require some organisation. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

intro

I edited the intro to identify gehenna as an afterlife destination. Jonathan Tweet 02:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rabbinic tradition

I picked up material from "gehinom" and put it here. Gehinom is now a redirect to gehenna. --Jonathan Tweet 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gehenna Definition

As part of the Exorcism definition in the section on Exorcism in Judaism, it states that Gehenna is a term for the in between world or purgatory that all spirits go to before entering heaven. Yet if one clicks on Gehenna, it defines this as a fiery place where the wicked are punished after they die on or judgment day.

So is this a temporary place or a final destination? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.67.175 (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Both. In the Pharisaic tradition, Gehenna was punishment for the wicked. This is also how the term was meant by Christians for centuries. In the medieval tradition, gehenna came to be regarded as a temporary purification rather than as a final judgment. This article should make that clear. Jonathan Tweet 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reference in canonical, Greek scripture that points to Gehenna being a temporary world where spirits go before entering heaven. 24.23.126.182 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Christians identify Gehenna with eternal Hell. Medieval Jews, however, identified it as a temporary purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 12:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some who call themselves Christians identify Gehenna with the doctrine of "Hell", as most English versions translate the Greek word gehenna as "hell". But some who call themselves Christians believe that the doctrine of "Hell" is unScriptural, and that such a translation is interpretation and incorrect. Misty MH (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gehenna became a metonym for "Hell..." - indeed, based on the immediately preceding description, it would appear to better be a metonym for "Purgatory". Drsruli (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Right-align the Hebrew text?

Is there any way to get the block of Hebrew text to right-align? It looks really odd to me left-aligned. Christian Campbell (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that work? I'm not entirely hip on the wiki formatting syntax, I just used html for now, someone can probably wikify it later. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody Has the Right to Prohibit the name "The Old Testiment"

　　Selderane wrote in article 1.2 "Old Testament", "I'd like to suggest that you change the term 'old testament' to Tanach. 'old testament' implies that g-d has changed his promise to the Israelites. It's offensive to any jew. "

　　Selderane ought not think like this. "The Old Testament", being the name of the front part of both the Christian Bible and Catholic Bible, are known and used all through the world. Very few people know what "Tanach" is. You ought not think people not following Judaism offending Jews. All people must respect the freedoms of thinking and speaking! Not all Jews are Judaists. Many Jews are Chritians or Catholics. Jadaists may express their opinions with their words, and in the same way, others may express their opinions with their words. Everybody must not force others follow his religion belief. We ought to discuss reasonably and respect one and other.

Tietu (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Tietu, 2008-1-15 7:32 (G.M.T.)

Christians are NOT jews. Ever. Just my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.250 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "Jewish" can mean either Jewish by race or Jewish by religion. In the latter meaning, an accepted Gentile (non-Jew by race) could be Jewish by religion, and be called "Jewish" in that sense. Some people may use the word "Jew" to mean "Jewish"; that may be confusing, but if one thinks twice about it, the intended usage may become clear by context. :) Misty MH (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Prevent People Telling the Truth Must Not Allowed!

　　I cannot understand why in the article "Etymology", the sentence " According to The Old Testament, "Gehenna" or "Ge Hinnom" is only a real valley. "has been deleted by somebody for several time. That sentence only tell an important fact and the truth! Both Chritians and Judaists respect The Old Testament as God's words!

　　If anyone do not agree that sentence, one can express one's opinion with one's reasons, but must not deleted other people's sentence!

　　Prevent people telling the truth must not be allowed!

　　Prevent people to express their opinions must not be allowed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tietu (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't here for opinions but for outside sources with citations. You keep inserting According to The Old Testament, "Gehenna" or "Ge Hinnom" is ONLY a real valley when the OT never says that. It says that it is a real valley, but it never say is it can ONLY be a real valley, which is what your wording implies. So I reworded it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bikinibomb,

　　"According to The Old Testament, 'Gehenna' or 'Ge Hinnom' is only a real valley. "What does this sentence mean? It means that The Old Testament ONLY tells people "Gehenna" or "Ge Hinnom" (valley of Hinnom) being a real valley , as you has confessed. The Old Testament has never said the valley of hinnom being other things, e.g. "the Jewish hell" or "purgatory". So, in The Old Testament, "the valley of Hinnom" (which "Gehenna" or "Ge Hinnom" means) can ONLY be a real valley or mean a real valley. So, the sentence "According to The Old Testament, 'Gehenna' or 'Ge Hinnom' is only a real valley. "has nothing wrong. You ought not have deleted it.

Tietu (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Tietu 2008-1-15 18:06(G.M.T.)

It only says it IS a real valley, it doesn't say it IS ONLY a real valley, as if it can't be symbolic of anything more. Understand the difference? That's the loaded language you keep using that I keep reverting. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Hell

I would imagine that the views about Hell among Jew vary tremendously. Thus I'm wondering if the line, "In Judaism hell is a place of purification[1] and fire for the wicked, most being punished there up to a year but some for eternity." might be controversial for some. It also seems like it might be unnessecary. The article is talking about Gehenna, not the Jewish description of hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.211.154 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehova's witness

While it may be correct that Jehova's Witness believe in annihilationism, using them as the only example implies that this is a belief only on the fringe of mainline Christianity, when in fact there are many protestants who teach and believe annihilationism. I don't see why any example is needed, if a reader does not understand the term, they can click on the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change it.Jzeise (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite this page being about the Jewish conception of Hell, the article mostly talks about Jesus, the New Testament and Christian Teachings

There is plenty to say about Jewish conceptions of Hell, this article should be heavily expanded upon.

A good point, go ahead and do it if you have the proper sources and can cite it. dougweller (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No waw

In the parts of the Talmud that I have consulted the word is spelled without a waw, more like Gehinnam (the Even-Shoshan dictionary says there's a qamats).

The Five

So who are the five who are in Gehenna for eternity? It's not in the article nor in the link. And is there a more direct way to summarize the Jewish concept of hell? freshacconci talktalk 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT change?

Hi,

Is AnomieBOT an automatic thing that Wikipedia did by itself, a "bot" that someone named AnomieBOT ran, or a change that someone named AnomieBOT made?

I saw that my Citation Needed date code was changed from capital D in Date to lowercase d for date.

Thanks.

Misty MH (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This section titled "Translations in Christian Bibles" makes statements about Christian beliefs that only reflect the understanding of Evangelical Portestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.51.124 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Identity of Hinnom

Who is Hinnom, and how did he get associated with this valley? BurnSpiral (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

I agree that some mention of Hinnom the historical, legendary, or mythical person should at least be given a sentence or two. I googled it and found a snippet claiming Hinnom to be the father of an ancient hero, but there is no description beyond that, and I can't speak to the credibility of the source which made the claim. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hebrew interwiki link

The link for Hebrew in the "languages" sidebar leads to גיא בן הינום (Gai Ben-Hinnom), which is about the eponymous geographical feature. Shouldn't it lead to גהנום (Gehinnom), which deals with the place to which, in some belief systems, the souls of sinners are dispatched after death?  --Lambiam 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of the page is incorrect and should be Gehinnom

I am an orthodox practising Jew and have never ever come across the term gehenna in my entire life. The concept is called Gehinnom, NOT gehenna. Gehinnom is a hebrew word, and is the word that should be used. While I appreciate that the word gehanna may exist, it is never referred to as such by jews (unless it is a yiddish word, which in no way should replace the original hebrew word).

I request that you change the name of the page to Gehinnom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.187.135 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We go by common English usage, which by far is Gehenna, in English. It is from the Greek adaptation of the Aramaic form of the word. See the etymology section of the article. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The title is based on the Greek word γέεννα that appears in the Christian New Testament (see Etymology in the article). Note that "Gehinnom" redirects here. Tony Lewis (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of categories

Unjustified removal, restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed Christianity categories, as Christianity is not a defining characteristic of Gehenna. Although it may appear as a transliteration in some Bible translations, the term is not commonly used in Christian beliefs or in Christian theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but nonsense. Please see Google Books, or indeed the sources in article; this is 100% a Christian term, otherwise the article would be at a Hebrew or Aramaic title. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the term isn't used in Christianity, I'm just saying that Christianity is not a defining characteristic of the Gehenna article (see also Wikipedia:DEFINING#Non-defining_characteristics). Just being a term isn't sufficient for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to any further comments. Otherwise I will presume that you're okay with the given motivation to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is Gehenna, then where is the Valley of Hinnom?

It's like in the Nasreddin Hodja story about the deceitful wife who eats the 1 kg liver for the feast and accuses the 1 kg cat of stealing it: Nasreddin weighs the cat and exclaims "If this is the cat, then where is the liver? And if this is the liver, then where is the cat?"
If one edits another article and wants to link the place name Valley of Hinnom to the main article dealing with the topic, he ends up on the Gehenna page which explains that we don't know if G. = V o H, and that neither can be identified with certainty on the map. THAT'S A KILLER! Fine for theologians, but today the name is firmly attributed to the valley W and S of the Old City. Once that's said and the cat is again a cat, one can start looking through scripture for the old liver.
I did some patching up, but it's still too confusing for the common WP user who comes here for clarification, not in-depth analysis. "Gehenna" and "Valley of Hinnom" need to be separated on two different pages, there's no way around it! Link them afterwards as well as you like, but an unidentified area from the Bible cannot be treated on the same page as a well-named valley from a modern city, with thousands of visitors and traffic problems.
This is an often recurring issue with geographic terms which occur in the Bible, but are common-use place names in today's Israel or whatever u like to call it. Editors should be aware of this and either separate the pages, or distinguish between the 2 uses VERY CLEARLY (my permanent crusade, the often missing STRUCTURE). Not shouting like a prophet in the desert, I hope :) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

The Yod in Hinnom

Hey, User:Editor2020. I like the clean-up. Before you started editing, I removed a yod from the final word of the expression Ge Ben Hinnom. It seems to be back now. For whatever it's worth, there's never a yod in the biblical usage. Do you want it back for some reason, or did it just get lost in the shuffle? Alephb (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I think I see what you did now. The shorter form just got trimmed out in editing. No problem.Alephb (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gehenna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040514062304/http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/H/Hinnom.html to http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/H/Hinnom.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

gehenna

In the topic GEHENNA (hell) as a reason for taking for hell the name of a valley in modern Jeruzalem that was used for sacrificing children there are no mentions of the time, counted in our modern calendar. The sacrificing of children, for example, must have been one or two or three centuries before king David, i.e. some 600 years before Christ. This is, in my opinion, a grave omission. I find these omissions also outside Wickipaedia. It seems hard to combine ordinary historical data with original bible texts. There are so many references in the bible to historical information, that it seems amazing that after a certain event the ordinary dates are not given. It seems historians are afraid to treat the bible as an ordinary history book, while at the same time believers seem to be desinterested in the history of human civilization. Here there is a lot of work to be done, but it is easy: search some biblical encyclopaedias for simple information, and combine it with the secular lemmas in secular encyclopaedias like Wikipedia. If I read about king Ezra of the prophet Jesajah, I would like to see their birth and death years IMMEDIATELY, because I won´t spend the time to look it up myself - and these dates are important to get an image of the time period these things happened; in other words: where history starts and where religious legend end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanomme (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Line of Hezekiah (identity of Zechariah)

Under "The Concept of Hinnom" > "Hebrew Bible", could a reference be provided for the assertion that Hezekiah was the son of, specifically, the High Priest's daughter?

I see, from 2 Kings 18:2, that Hezekiah is reported to be the son of Abi/Abijah "the daughter of Zechariah", but I also see (2 Kings 15:8-11) that a "Zechariah" was king of Israel in Samaria at an appropriate sort of time, and that there appear to be numerous Zechariahs throughout the Scriptures.

I believe that it would be significant if Hezekiah were to be in both the line of kings and the line of priests, but would be grateful for evidence that this is indeed the case.

Nmartinsmith (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)nmartinsmith

Requested move 16 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to Gehenna. Consensus has deemed that Gehenna is the COMMONNAME here. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) → Valley of Hinnom – Is there a valid reason to keep two titles for one article? It doesn't help disambiguate. As far as I know, there are no other Valleys of Hinnom ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 00:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Reversal of a redirect. I don't think "(Gehenna)" was intended as disambiguation in this case, even though it looks like it, but rather as an alternative name for the valley/concept. This article was titled Gehenna until someone boldly moved it to the current title in July 2021, and Gehenna still also redirects here. I would also not be opposed to a move back to Gehenna. - Station1 (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Either one is correct, but only one should be it.

  Articles should have one title, and all alternative ones should be redirects. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Return to Gehenna: It's extremely clear which is more prevalent. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Revert back to Gehenna. Previous move was a bold move without an RM that should not be given much weight. Gehenna is the COMMONNAME in English. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Gehenna per all of the above comments. SilverLocust 💬 03:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone more familiar with the topic update the lede to reflect the title change? I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I had a go after seeing the move. It's clearer now I think. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Islamic section

I removed most of the Islamic section because it stemmed from one encyclopedic source and it didn't mention the page number. It also had some grammar mistakes and was strange in content. 21fafs (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)