Talk:King David

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Added a good amount of material, as i am working on a separate article on David and Jonathan, by the grace of God, and David's background is relevant. Needs more proofing.Daniel1212 22:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Too much

I find that the discussion on this page on David's battle with Goliath, and the general text in general, is far too long and needs to be made more concise. I already redid the part on David's historicity, adding relevant sources etc. I plan to do further edits in the future and add a section on the historicity of David's kingdom. --Unsigned comment by User:Korvex

I like the detail on David's life. It's good to see a detailed article on Conservapedia. If you can find a way to make the article more concise without actually removing information, I would really appreciate that, though. Thanks for the edits you have already done, regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2017 (EDT)
That's what I'm going to try to work on -- making it more concise. It would be much more beneficial for conservapedia editors to add information here and there on different articles, instead of overdoing some articles and leaving others very empty.Korvex (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
OK. Sounds great. If you remove any information that could be put on other articles, please do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
Remove information that can be put on other articles? Technically, that would mean we can delete almost the entire section on David and Jonathan, and simply refer people to David and Jonathan. Thoughts? --Unsigned comment by User:Korvex
To clarify, please do this only if you decide to remove information from this article. I would preferably keep the info (with a "See also" link to the "David and Jonathan" article), but if you believe it is better only in the other article, please move every piece of information that was not in the sub-article to the sub-article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
Honestly, I don't think the homosexuality discussion in the David and Jonathan section should be removed, it is out of place. Do you agree? I also think a page on David and Goliath should be created (perhaps you can do that), where the current information on this page is copied and pasted to it, and a smaller summary can be made here. If you create that David and Goliath page and copy and paste the information there, I can edit it to make it look like a more proper page.
Update: Never mind, I did that.


The part about David and Golith was far too long on this page. So, I created another page David and Goliath, and copied and pasted everything that was one this page to that one. So all the information that was previously on this David page is now on the David and Goliath page. On this page, I removed about half of the content (small details were removed throughout). Is there anyone who disagrees with the edit?

UPDATE: I also want to completely remove the part under 'David and Jonathan' that describes the liberal claims on what the Bible supposedly says 'sexually' was going on between David and Jonathan. It's obviously nonsense and I don't want anyone to even come across such discussion on a page devoted to David himself (although that might have a place on David and Jonathan). I have not removed it yet because I at least want give other editors an opportunity to disagree with me. --Unsigned comment by Korvex

This is the edit, for future reference. I personally don't have any objections, but the fact that theological liberals are increasingly distorting more and more passages of te Bible to support their views. The sexual content may seem silly to mention, but it, like many other "disputed" portions of the Bible may be necessary to refute due to this reason. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

I almost feel as if anyone who thinks David and Jonathan had any intimate relationship in the first place are far out of reach to convince anyways. I would consider it, but it would almost seem like polluting the page by devoting a section to something that a liberal wouldn't understand in the first place. I do think however the part on Jonathan needs to be expanded a little.