Changes

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics {{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}

==False?==

==False?==

"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)