Talk:Tamar (daughter of David)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tamar's Robe[edit]

There's inaccurate information regarding Tamar's robe with the article suggesting the colourfulness of it suggests she's a priestess, healer, and "mistress of dreams." The Bible quote provided is inadequate in supporting this view since it's only part of the passage, the relevant omitted passage gives the actual purpose of the robe. (2 Samuel 13:18) "...the king’s virgin daughters wore such apparel." The colourful robes signified the women as being virgin daughters of David, nothing to do with priesthood or other mumbo jumbo. I would remove this myself but my edit was reverted and was told to bring it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage Endeavour (talkcontribs) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading what our article actually says, and you need to stop edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why people hate wikipedia. I know it's an atheist website but seriously, everybody else who doesn't share your beliefs are going to read these articles, should at least keep bias out of it and stick to the facts. Using the Bible isn't the end of the world. And we're talking about a stupid piece of clothing, how strict can you guys get, I just this little piece of inaccurate information omitted, please?--Sage Endeavour (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have said twice in edit notes (here and here) that the current content is "inaccurate information" and above you write "The Bible quote provided is inadequate in supporting this view" . You are ignoring what the content actually says and the reference provided to support it. Please re-read what the article actually says, and let me know your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the merge from the above article based on consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amnon and Tamar story, although there was very little material that wasn't already here in the target, better sourced and more encyclopedic in tone. Joyous! | Talk 00:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]