94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: +
Talk:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (view source)
Revision as of 00:56, August 28, 2007
, 00:56, August 28, 2007no edit summary
::Yes, I know you put a source. Thank you, that is all I was asking for. I was making the point that you shouldn't have put what seems like opinion in the article without sourcing it in the first place. This is basic stuff, you shouldn't have to be reminded. However, I still don't understand what you are trying to argue. You know the 300's and 400's is the same as the 4th and 5th century right? [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I know you put a source. Thank you, that is all I was asking for. I was making the point that you shouldn't have put what seems like opinion in the article without sourcing it in the first place. This is basic stuff, you shouldn't have to be reminded. However, I still don't understand what you are trying to argue. You know the 300's and 400's is the same as the 4th and 5th century right? [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:::But the source was in before I even wrote on this talk page. I was questioning why you would think it was opinion when it is already common knowledge in the field. I don't especially like providing a source in this case, as it makes it seem that this is the view of one work, when in fact it is not. Fact citations are usually used if one believes the information is false, hence I commented above. Based upon the hole in your knowlegdge in this area, I wanted to make sure you were aware the 4th and 5th century were the 300s and 400s. There was also the chance putting it in that form for you might spur your recollection of when Christianity became legal and their works were no longer burned, if you had read that sometime in your past. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:::But the source was in before I even wrote on this talk page. I was questioning why you would think it was opinion when it is already common knowledge in the field. I don't especially like providing a source in this case, as it makes it seem that this is the view of one work, when in fact it is not. Fact citations are usually used if one believes the information is false, hence I commented above. Based upon the hole in your knowlegdge in this area, I wanted to make sure you were aware the 4th and 5th century were the 300s and 400s. There was also the chance putting it in that form for you might spur your recollection of when Christianity became legal and their works were no longer burned, if you had read that sometime in your past. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::First of all, you can add more than one source if you like, that would make it clear that many people hold this view. Secondly, regardless of what you feel the prevailing view in the field is, you still need a citation for statements like "...the King James Bible has been found to be largely accurate with only a few sections questioned." and "It has also been widely noted just how accurately the Bible has been copied, as is seen by comparing ancient versions that existed in different locations thousands of miles apart. The quantity of copies of the Bible from ancient times either in full, fragmented parts, or quotes from the writings of the ancient fathers, makes it by far the most copied and reliable document of antiquity. To question the Bible, one must throw out all ancient writings as being inaccurate since they are not nearly as well documented, as extensive, or copied as accurately between versions." The average reader will ask "widely noted by whom?" if you don't have a citation for things like this. I am not sure why you keep insisting that I have a "hole in knowlegdge" in this area (it's spelled knowledge, btw). For your information, I have taken a number of college-level history courses with the majority being from this time period. I also don't see the relevance of noting that Christian documents were often burned before the Edict of Milan. Just because Christians were persecuted before that time, you cannot give their holy book a pass in terms of it's reliability. You also make a big deal about how the Bible is more reliable than other ancient documents. In general, I would agree with this assertion (excepting of course original stone inscriptions and the like). However, you fail to note that other ancient documents do not claim to be the infallible word of God and therefore are not held to the same standard. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 20:56, 27 August 2007 (EDT)