Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 29 July 2007

Biblical inerrancy

This has to be asked since Wiki is suppost to be factual.

Biblical inerrancy is odviously a POV

Secondly if you ask 99.99% of people who dont have a vested interest (They are not christian) they will tell you the bible is not infalliable.

So why is this article not just an example of a mistake, contradition, etc etc etc then say the Biblical inerrancy is not true!--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

Because there are refutations which reinterpret the Bible in figurative terms- in the process satisfying the errors. The Rhymesmith 09:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment doesnt make sence, let alone prove Biblical inerrancy So reinterpreting the bible makes the origonal bible 100% accurate? Pretending its somthing else makes it somthing else?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

{{helpme}}

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for help with? You seem to be asking how we can claim to be neutral or factual with an article about Biblical inerrancy. The short answer is that we're covering the subject without necessarily saying we agree with any particular stance on it -- similarly, we have an article on white supremacy without endorsing it as a position. People may be interested in reading up on the topic in an encyclopedic form, in which case we should strive to provide neutral information to give people an overview. If someone is using an article to editorialize or advocate, that is a problem, and runs afoul of our neutral point of view policy. I hope that answers your question. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its like having an article "The world is flat" then have a small section in that saying some critics think the world is not flat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

Which, in fact, we do: see Flat Earth. Again, these articles are not here because we do or don't agree with them, but because we want to provide information so that people can read up on the subject. If the article seems to advocate a particular position, something is wrong. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats fair enought, BUT you will notice the flat earth article, says its rubbish which it is, so why is the bible irrency not given the same information? that its rubbish!

Magic the Gathering

Gscshoyru you finally admitted that cards art work is valuable is not corret, after you kept adding it back in how many times? So it was you putting false statements in to push a POV that you may not even have!

Magic the Gathering

Name some magic cards that are valuable because of their art work?

You'll notice that I left that part in, i.e. I put it back. (EDIT: or rather, left it out, I mispoke -- you put it back in!) There probably are some, but I don't have the information to contest it. Gscshoyru 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So in the first place you changed it back from what I had done just because it was that way before, you odviously didnt do it becasue what I had written was wrong and the previous was correct.

See this: diff, you added it back in, not I. I just misspoke. Gscshoyru 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

--203.87.127.18 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --cj | talk 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)