17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + +
→Sources
:I see further that you put something at the top that would make us believe that it is only "some Fundamentalists" who reject the Documentary Hypothesis. I would have expected such a sweeping and undocumented statement from Wikipedia. I am surprised to find it in Conservapedia. The same about your truncation of the concluding statement: how do you know that the majority of seminaries teach it? Should not this be modified at least by saying that conservative seminaries teach it, but also show that it is not scientifically respecatble? [[User:Latent|Latent]] 16:07, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:I see further that you put something at the top that would make us believe that it is only "some Fundamentalists" who reject the Documentary Hypothesis. I would have expected such a sweeping and undocumented statement from Wikipedia. I am surprised to find it in Conservapedia. The same about your truncation of the concluding statement: how do you know that the majority of seminaries teach it? Should not this be modified at least by saying that conservative seminaries teach it, but also show that it is not scientifically respecatble? [[User:Latent|Latent]] 16:07, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for clarification on the source. This encylopedia caters to conservatives of all theological viewpoints, not just Fundamentalists. This article has to follow suit. Most of the sources used are many decades old, which is a warning sign that it is not current. As for the majority of seminaries, I actually have done some research on this topic and looked at syllabi from numerous denominations. (I have beemn writing the articles on many different denominations and always check on what they teach re the OT). As for "primitive" --anthropologists only have seen 19-20th century societies--not those form 2500+ years ago. (Primitive = simple tools, it does not mean 3000 years old).
====references====
====references====
<references/>
<references/>