SkipCaptcha
108
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + +
no edit summary
:: Thanks for clarification on the source. This encyclopedia 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 been 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). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:17, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for clarification on the source. This encyclopedia 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 been 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). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:17, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:::You did not address my point. It was not saying that Conservapedia is expected to be only for "Fundamentalists." It was that it is not just "some Fundamentalists" reject the Documentary Hypothesis. It is also now rejected by a signficant number of liberal scholars, and also by people like Cyrus Gordon who recognized the continual conflicts produced against its theories as ancient inscriptions were translated and understood. I recognized that for some people (are you one of them?) the term "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative term -- was that the reason you put it here? How about substituting "those who believe, with Jesus and the apostles, in the integrity of Scripture"? That would be an accurate statement; could it be substituted? I don't think you won't let that be put in.
:::Regarding "Primitive": Certainly these tribes are "modern" in the sense that they are living in the 21st century. But the point is that their most early beliefs, going back we don't know how many centuries or millenia (many of them refer back to the time of their first migration to their present homeland) attest to an early belief in one God. My original paragraph that you omitted is therefore relevant to this discussion of Documentary Hypothesis, since the Hypothesis has always held that monotheism "evolved" as a central tenet. Is this presupposition of the Documentary Hypothesis to be held unfalsifiable by the actual examination of ancient tribal histories and ancient historical texts? See the Monotheism article I just added to to find more explanation, and which also challenges the idea of an evolutionary development or religion that is firmly entrenched in Wikipedia and other liberal sources. I think these ideas should be falisfiable, and evidence that is contrary to its tenets should be allowed to be stated, with appropriate scholarly references.[[User:Latent|Latent]] 16:47, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
====references====
====references====
<references/>
<references/>