| Revision as of 12:03, 29 July 2007 editCJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,411 edits warn← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:58, 9 August 2022 edit undoBD2412bot (talk | contribs)Bots724,684 editsm →top: Template update., replaced: {{OW}} → {{Blanked IP talk}}Tag: AWB | ||
| (97 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==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!--<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Because there are refutations which reinterpret the Bible in figurative terms- in the process satisfying the errors. | |||
| ] 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?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| {{tl|helpme}} | |||
| I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for help with? You seem to be asking how we can claim to be ] or ] with an article about ]. 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 ] 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 ] policy. I hope that answers your question. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 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.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :Which, in fact, we do: see ]. 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. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 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 == | |||
| ] 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. ] 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. ] 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --] 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit warring== | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] 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 ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a ] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->--] | ] 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:58, 9 August 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.