This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Yes Randal, it is actually extremely likely, given Wiki's apologetic policies on Judaism and Christianity. You must fully understand that where faith in God, Yaweh, El, Al, Baal, Adonis, Elohim, Bosephus, ect., ect., ect., is concerned, there simply are no reliable sources for any position that criticizes the 30,000+++ different denominational viewpoints on biblical interpretations of historical fact based entirely on the assimilation of ancient world myths. To even consider the possibility is pure blasphemy and grounds for immediate excommunication for life. Manson 22:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)
I agree. I think there is a tendency for religious articles on Wikipedia to be biased anyway, because believers in those religions have a much more vested interest in the subject than non-believers do. Anyway, I think you're both right because the reviews section of this article seems to me slightly unfairly skewed against the book and it omits some very positive reviews of the book. I may add excerpts from a few of those at some point if I have time, but for now I think I'll just add a POV tag to warn the casual reader that the impression given by this section may be misleading. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The section is messy - a jumble of 'positive' and 'negative' comments, but it's clearly not just critical. The first post in this thread was written two years ago. I see no reason for the tag. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It does seem ridiculous to me that the views of Daniel B. Wallace on the book's shortcomings are given more room than a summary of the book itself. This article needs to be re-written, for now I am cutting a lot of that out.Smeat75 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)