Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 86:
Line 86: + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 23:25, December 25, 2009
, 23:25, December 25, 2009That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels ''do'' recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not
:Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)
:Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)
== Reply to Liberal Talk ==
Several liberal comments were inserted, and then reverted, in the content page. One claimed that the word "war" is conservative (??), and that references to "war" in the Bible are examples of conservative translation. First, "war" is not a conservative word (conservatives virtually never start wars). Second, there is no other way to translate the word!
The liberal comments also claimed that because the narrative about Jesus's infancy in Luke does not appear in the other Gospels, then we should accept the also-not-referenced verse about forgiving those who crucified Jesus. That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels ''do'' recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not add a quotation that the eyewitnesses omitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)