Debate: Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)
This page is provided as a forum for responses and reactions to the content of the Text and the Marginal Notes of Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)
Debate the disclaimer: "Note to the reader: Conservapedia cannot tell the reader what to believe. Every effort is made to present balanced encyclopedic information free of liberal and atheistic bias." Is this feature non-biased, or is it in fact slanted?
About "Full Protection" of the Main Article and the Longer Form with marginal notes
As contributor, I will begin, and state that my primary motive for initial "Full Protection" of the Main Article and the Longer Form for the period of a year up to the end of November 2018, was initially to avoid disruption by vandals and controversialists during the development and proofreading editorial refinement of this encyclopedic feature, and to give honest readers and any possible critiquing scholars an opportunity of thoroughly and carefully evaluating the material in its entirety before responding with commentary and revisions.
The subject matter is perennially controversial and always invites immediate reactions, and frankly some people will jump to conclusions before reading the entire treatment with the whole spectrum of opinions represented. I have been "accused" of having a Catholic bias. I hope not. As a devout Catholic convert I am dedicated to truth and honesty—"honest to God!". In seeking to be fair, and represent all sides of a controversy and also reason about them from the standpoint of the text of scripture, academic logic, and the traditions of mainstream and ancient Christian history, I think I have managed to fulfill the truth contained in the quip, "There is something here to offend almost everyone!" But that was not my intent. Fundamentalists, Orthodox, Catholics, Liberals, Conservatives will each find something they really like and something they really don't like. Please don't jump to conclusions at the beginning of a marginal note before reading all of it, and please don't read the first linked articles in a marginal note defending one point of view before reading those that follow them in the list which may present counter arguments. The "Full Protection" tags of the pages of the feature provide a "cooling off period" of a year. And by that time some of the novelty will have worn off, numbered views will have slowed down, and some people will no longer care and go on to other things. Evidence of this is already visible, in the interval between September and now (the 20th of December). But others will become interested in the subject matter, Bible students and others. It is these I hoped to help.
Peer review from experts in biblical studies and New Testament scholars would be most welcome. Some will no doubt say, "You flatter yourself; it's not that important or consequential. No one of academic standing of consequence or competence would think of taking the time to dignify this material with a review, let alone get involved by contributing to it." But unintended inaccuracies, errors and misrepresentations should be corrected; because in fact the whole point of this project is that it's not about me, or my reputation as a contributor, but it should be about the benefit of this work to the readers. Salient and cogent remarks, observations, and recommending corrections are welcome. They should be made.
I intend at the end of November 2018 to remove the "Full Protection" for at least another year until November 2019. If all goes well, full protection of the page of the Main Article, and the pages of the chapters of the Longer Form of the Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) with marginal notes, will not be necessary any longer. If there is a reactive flood of disruptive edits and vandalism once they are removed, the Main Article and the Longer Form with marginal notes and the Shorter Form will be reverted to my last edit (the one made whenever I have finally left this feature entirely alone) and the "Full Protection" tags will be put back. If that is the case, observations, critiques, and criticisms can continue to be posted here.
My final edit this page.
Reader responses and criticisms
Deleted Letter to the Laodiceans restored
I only just tonight 13 April 2018 discovered that the text of the inauthentic "Letter to the Laodiceans", provided solely for readers' information, had been removed from both the longer form with marginal notes and the shorter form with text only. This is a reader response of a sort. The marginal notes regarding Laodiceans background and links to expert Textual Critical analyses establishing its lack of authenticity, including the disclaimer that Conservapedia does not accept it as inspired or as authentic, were not removed, giving a superficial impression that nothing had been removed. The summary of the edit which deleted the text of the "Letter" did not disclose that it had been removed. This indicates vandalism and deliberate deceit. Because the page with marginal notes was Protected, this indicates that the vandal either has Administrative Privileges or is a hack expert in defeating Conservapedia's protection of pages. This act of vandalism covered up by deceit (failure to disclose) is not Christian. It is at the least an act of Academic dishonesty. Laodiceans is no more authentic than the hoax that is Acts 29—which was not removed. Both of these texts were clearly set forth by me as discredited and inauthentic in the marginal notes. Both are clearly noted as rejected, as not part of the Bible and as not inspired scripture, by Conservapedia and by me the original contributor. The pages are not fully protected, even with the "full protection" tag. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2018 (EDT)