Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:14, 4 November 2005

Major revision of article. I added a detailed historical section. 217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)Eypper217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How to NPOV?

"Whether he actually existed as a person or as an abstraction remains a mystery."

At the moment, this sentence is POV (e.g. Bible literalists will not consider it a mystery). — Matt 18:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to look up what NPOV means. (anon)

Why? — Matt Crypto 12:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because biblical literalism is a fringe view with no evidence. NPOV policy applies to differing mainstream viewpoints that are supported by evidence. --Rob117 04:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical Melchizedik

What is this section? It seems to be solely one man's (completly surmised) account of an occurance, which could have many historical explanations. It ought to be a paragraph long at the most and suplemented by other historian's views. Or at the very least this stuff should be explained: What evidence is there that Melchizedek refers to an 'El-elyon' rather than Yahweh (Who is also refered to as El throughout the bible, anyway). Why would an 'outside source' be inserted into the bible? Why? Why? I think this article is in severe need of cleanup.

It is an essay presenting someone's personal opinion. Actually to me it feels like a copyvio - can someone look in the Anchor Bible to see how much of this text is here? Whatever the result of that check, this section is unacceptable. I propose wholesale deletion. --Zero 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree; whether personal essay or copyvio, it should be deleted. This person did the same thing to tithe, which should probably get the same treatment. Jayjg 16:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found it amusing reading this article for the first time. Where only a moment earlier I read of Melchizedek mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and then this paragraph saying there is NO mention of him anywhere else except for the Bible. It should be revised.

To NPOV:

I removed this from the article for now:

As a commentary on Psalm 110, Hebrews is important in New Testament theology, but, written over a thousand years after the Melchizedek episode, it has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion."

POV, really: Hebrews has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion unless (for example) you believe Hebrews to be the inspired word of God. Is there a point here that's worth salvaging and reinserting in NPOV form? — Matt Crypto 09:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All scripture in the New Testiment is the inspired Word Of God. The Bible even says so.

Indian reference

What is Melik-Sadaksina doing on this page? Shouldn't it be on its own page? If people believe Melchizedek was this other guy, then perhaps we should cross-reference them. Otherwise, I don't think it belongs here at all. Jgardner 18:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

I believe the link to Dominion of Melchizedek and other things with references to Melchizedek are highly relevant. Please voice your concern if you don't think so. Jgardner 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Jgardner: Instead of voicing her concern see removed it without explanation after she just finished saying that she doesn't know anything about this subject.KAJ 07:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Old Testament/New Testiment

The last part of the section on the Old Testiment and the section on the New Testiment are cut and paste straight from another website of essays from a person. It may be copyright. at least there shuld be a link or reference to the site. http://www.crystalinks.com/melchizedek.html. Could someone let me know if the etiquette for editing. Shoud these sections go in the order of the article or the order they are inserted. TY