User talk:Jaban

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(therefore, God wrote the bible)
 
(Attribution)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
You added the following to [[Petitio principii]]:
+
 
:"''Fortunately, if you are speaking to someone who actually knows what they are talking about, their answer to "How do you know that that God wrote it?" will certainly not be guilty of circular reasoning. Their answer should not merely be "Because the bible says so." They should go on to explain that the Bible has been confirmed, and not contradicted, scientifically, archaeologically, historically, and prophetically. The believer should then explain that this makes the Bible trustworthy and, therefore, God wrote the bible.''"
+
 
I've changed this paragraph in the article because:
+
== Regarding New Testament epistles ==
# The articles in this wiki are to be written [[Project:NPOV|from an atheist perspective]]; atheists would not agree with the above statement. (Perhaps you just phrased it poorly?)
+
 
# The reasoning you give is an example of a [[non sequitur]]: even if ''everything'' in the Bible were "confirmed", it ''still'' wouldn't be evidence that God wrote it.
+
Where there is more than one book in a series (e.g. 1 and 2 and 3 John), I think it wold be beneficial to write about all three in one article ("The Epistles of John"), especially when it comes to debates about authorship.
If you'd like to try to rephrase your original contribution, please do. But don't write it from a theist perspective. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:20, 7 October 2008 (CDT)
+
 
 +
But as it is now, most of the multi-book articles are barely more than stubs, so to create another stub-sized article to talk about authorship alone seems pointless.
 +
 
 +
Does anyone have a problem with me simply merging those into single articles?
 +
 
 +
(1 & 2 Corintians would become "Epistles to the Corinthians", 1 & 2 & 3 John would become "Epistles of John", and so on.)
 +
 
 +
I only see it as a problem for the fella who wrote the chapter-by-chapter summary of the three Epistles of John. But, if you ask me, that's far too much info anyway. A summary should be a couple of paragraphs per book, with any important points separated into a "Highlights" section. And THAT would work fine merged. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 01:34, 9 July 2010 (CDT)
 +
 
 +
== Attribution ==
 +
 
 +
Thanks for your feedback.
 +
 
 +
If I should happen to come up with something worth spreading, by all means I'd be very happy to have it spread! :-)
 +
 
 +
I was just allowing [my vanity?] to hope that I might be recognised as the originator of the idea. It might come in handy one day. (I know, I know. As likely as a 747 out of a scrapyard...)
 +
 
 +
It looks as if you have an interesting story to tell, I'll try to read it later today. --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:50, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Latest revision as of 02:50, 10 March 2011


Regarding New Testament epistles

Where there is more than one book in a series (e.g. 1 and 2 and 3 John), I think it wold be beneficial to write about all three in one article ("The Epistles of John"), especially when it comes to debates about authorship.

But as it is now, most of the multi-book articles are barely more than stubs, so to create another stub-sized article to talk about authorship alone seems pointless.

Does anyone have a problem with me simply merging those into single articles?

(1 & 2 Corintians would become "Epistles to the Corinthians", 1 & 2 & 3 John would become "Epistles of John", and so on.)

I only see it as a problem for the fella who wrote the chapter-by-chapter summary of the three Epistles of John. But, if you ask me, that's far too much info anyway. A summary should be a couple of paragraphs per book, with any important points separated into a "Highlights" section. And THAT would work fine merged. --Jaban 01:34, 9 July 2010 (CDT)

Attribution

Thanks for your feedback.

If I should happen to come up with something worth spreading, by all means I'd be very happy to have it spread! :-)

I was just allowing [my vanity?] to hope that I might be recognised as the originator of the idea. It might come in handy one day. (I know, I know. As likely as a 747 out of a scrapyard...)

It looks as if you have an interesting story to tell, I'll try to read it later today. --BronzeDome 02:50, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox