40
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 19:52, April 13, 2008
, 19:52, April 13, 2008→Encyclopedic
I know this probably won't change anything, but I thought I should point out that this article does not look encyclopedic at all, but more like evangelism.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 12:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
I know this probably won't change anything, but I thought I should point out that this article does not look encyclopedic at all, but more like evangelism.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 12:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The notion that "encyclopedic" requires a definition that casts doubt on the veracity of certain facts of history is truly a sad commentary. [[James Ussher]]'s ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' was regarded as "encyclopedic" in its day, and rightly so.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The notion that "encyclopedic" requires a definition that casts doubt on the veracity of certain facts of history is truly a sad commentary. [[James Ussher]]'s ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' was regarded as "encyclopedic" in its day, and rightly so.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
=="Best attested figure in human history"==
Is that true? The Holy Bible is indeed the main record of the man, and a large and often well-authenticated book it is, but it is pretty much the only source. (I'm not for a second denying that record). But surely Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan or even Britney Spears would have had tens of thousands of different texts about them, by tens of thousands of different witnesses - far more than Christ? I don't disagree with the intention of your point, but there's probably a better, more accurate way to phrase the same point that doesn't contain factual inaccuracies. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 15:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)