SkipCaptcha
5,204
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 453:
Line 453: + + + +
Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge (view source)
Revision as of 23:03, January 12, 2017
, 23:03, January 12, 2017→Perhaps a little more dual attribution: new section
So, Strong makes it clear that in the Bible, λέγω is used to denote speech in progress. He doesn't bother with irrelevant Homeric meanings. ..[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:48, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
So, Strong makes it clear that in the Bible, λέγω is used to denote speech in progress. He doesn't bother with irrelevant Homeric meanings. ..[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:48, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
== Perhaps a little more dual attribution ==
You may want to be a little more careful in the claims made in the lead section and, when appropriate, provide double-attribution. The prophecy of events in the Bible is OK but you should avoid revisionist claims in terms of specific scientific progress. It is sometimes very easy to take credit for specific aspects of scientific progress. I am just recommending caution and editorial review for the sake of protecting the reputation of the wiki. An example might be a claim that it was G-d's Will that some fortunate historic event came out one way or the other (such as a military battle or potential Act of Nature) but it is more extraordinary to claim that a particular game of chess (or some such) was won through Divine Intervention. There are many scientific discoveries that came about in part because of accidents that can be treated as Acts of God, but attribution to the efforts of the researcher is also appropriate. One example might be the invention of the light bulb that was in part due to the grace of G-d but it was also due in part to Edison's persistence of making many hundreds of tries before he came upon a viable working model.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (EST)