User talk:Lukeannulis123
Welcome[edit]
Hello Lukeannulis123 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Lewis's trilemma, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024[edit]
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lewis's trilemma have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lewis's trilemma. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I did not vandalize the Lewis Trilemna. The site made many false claims Lukeannulis123 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mainstream Bible scholars fully agree with the information you sought to remove. This isn't Sunday school, it is a hardcore encyclopedia based upon WP:BESTSOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, you used quotes from MBS which is one sect of many Bible scholars. Saying the Bible is inaccurate spiritually is one thing. That is irrelevant to the topic of conversation. The fact is the New Testament at least is very historically accurate. Even non-biblical sources claim that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, which is a clear statement that He is YVYH, the Jewish name for God. I also don’t find it necessary to give our opinions on the theory. It should be strictly factual Lukeannulis123 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BESTSOURCES aren't "one sect" nor "our opinions". “Before Abraham was, I am” is unhistorical, and yes, "the New Testament at least is very historically accurate" is a bogus statement according to WP:CHOPSY. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package. Our house, our rules. If you want other WP:RULES, you should edit Conservapedia or OrthodoxWiki. Therefore, your "strictly factual" is not factual at all. Not inside the mainstream academia. Mainstream historians decide what amounts to historical fact, not theologians. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, you used quotes from MBS which is one sect of many Bible scholars. Saying the Bible is inaccurate spiritually is one thing. That is irrelevant to the topic of conversation. The fact is the New Testament at least is very historically accurate. Even non-biblical sources claim that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, which is a clear statement that He is YVYH, the Jewish name for God. I also don’t find it necessary to give our opinions on the theory. It should be strictly factual Lukeannulis123 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mainstream Bible scholars fully agree with the information you sought to remove. This isn't Sunday school, it is a hardcore encyclopedia based upon WP:BESTSOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
- Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Lewis's trilemma while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)