User talk:The Sackinator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, The Sackinator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Age of the universe does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!    — Jess· Δ 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As you already know, I'm a beginner at Wikipedia, so I hope that you will even get this message: I am thankful for the NPOV; I like that Wikipedia is to state only the facts. In fact, that's why I did the changes on that article. You see, calling evolution science and religion unscientific shows bias; it's taking the evolutionists' side. A large number of people believe in evolution, yet a large number believes in creation. PewResearchCenter says this: "Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable or slightly larger numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time." This has been stated in, I believe it's called, Huffington Post after a poll: "Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention." Isn't this enough to call evolution evolution and not science? The Sackinator (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sackinator. Thanks for your reply. On wikipedia, we have a number of policies which concern content. WP:WEIGHT is one which applies here. We give what's called "weight" to academic, peer reviewed and secondary sources, as well as mainstream ideas over fringe beliefs. We understand that many people are creationists, and we cover that in a variety of articles (such as Creationism, Objections to evolution, Intelligent design, and so on). However, within scientific articles (and any that don't concern fringe beliefs like creationism), the scientific consensus gets larger (indeed, often exclusive) weight. I hope that helps answer your question. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jess, I still have a question: Why is creationism a fringe belief? Is it considered to have little or no evidence? Is it un-highly believed by scientists? Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, and I hope we can get this worked out. —The Sackinator (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:FRINGE covers that a bit. In short, creationism is a fringe belief within the scientific community because it has little to no support among relevant scientists. This would include, for instance, biologists, among whom creationism is exceedingly rare. As a result, our articles on science need to give the scientific consensus due weight.   — Jess· Δ 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Another question, Jess: Thank you for answering my questions. If I found strong, undeniable evidence for creationism, yet many scientists did not believe in it, what should I do? The Sackinator (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. The thing is, this isn't the place to publish new information; we only report information that is already published in reliable sources (and with respect to our content policies I mentioned earlier). Sometimes, that does mean that we don't publish information that may turn out to be true some day, because it isn't covered in reliable sources today. We often recommend that if someone has a new idea, or undeniable evidence of something that isn't yet covered by high quality sources, then the first step is getting it published in a high quality source. That could mean contacting a peer reviewed journal, or a book publisher, or the news. So, you have that option. If this idea has already been published (say in a variety of books) but hasn't yet gained traction in the scientific community, then our job is to represent the idea as an idea. For creationism, that might mean documenting the idea in Objections to evolution or Creationism or Intelligent design. You'll see in those articles that we represent a broad range of ideas about creationism, but that they are presented alongside the scientific consensus as well. Other wikis operate with different rules and weight, such as Conservapedia, where you can undoubtedly get your evidence published, but that's the way our policies are setup here. Anyway, I hope that helps!   — Jess· Δ 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok. If I have information that is undeniable, I need a published source first. If I used a published source that gave strong, undeniable evidence for creationism in an article, would I then be permitted to change the article Age of the universe making it say, "This article is about evolutionary estimates of the age of the universe. For religious and other estimates, see Dating creation." instead of "This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe. For religious and other non-scientific estimates, see Dating creation."? Looking forward to your answer, The Sackinator (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Published is a good start, but again, we need to worry about weight. It would need to also meet WP:RS, which means that for a scientific article (like Age of the universe) it would need to have received traction within the scientific community. If you're not sure if a source qualifies, then you can discuss it on the article talk page (Talk:Age of the universe) or on our reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) to ask. We have a lot of editors from a broad range of backgrounds there that can look it over and give you an informed opinion.   — Jess· Δ 21:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jess. How shall I do this. Should I first go on the article Age of the universe's talk page and give my evidences and their citations for the creationism side and suggest changing the word scientific to evolutionary, or should I first do something else? What do you suggest? The Sackinator (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule, the first step would be the article talk page. I will say, before you go there, that there are a lot of sources of extremely high quality which back up the current wording in the article, so a change like what you're proposing would have to be backed up with quite a reference. As far as I'm aware, a reference like that doesn't exist... but I suppose I could be wrong. With that said, if you'd like to present it on the talk page, that would be a good first step. I'll try to stay out of the discussion and let other editors get involved so you don't feel like you're just dealing with me all the time. Let me know if you have any other questions or need more help.   — Jess· Δ 05:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Jess. I will get to work. The Sackinator (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to your claims on Age of the Universe[edit]

While this isn't an appropriate discussion to have there, I felt I needed to respond to your "The Bible contains advanced scientific knowledge" claim and answer your question.

The Bible didn't "know" those facts; modern Creationists are reading those facts into the Bible. They are doing so in a highly selective fashion, proclaiming that the verses they like are meant to be taken literal whereas other verses in the same book and even the same chapter (which happen to make statements that they can't read as "scientific") are meant to be taken poetically. Bluntly: Creationists loudly insist that their reading of the Bible is plain, straightforward, and totally consistent--while cherry-picking as much as or more than any other interpretation of the Bible.

An excellent example is the ever-popular "Behemoth was a dinosaur!" Creationists like to claim that Job plainly describes Behemoth as a dinosaur. In so doing, they willfully ignore tremendous amounts of context and ignore what the verses actually say:

1. They claim that the Bible says Behemoth had a tail as big as a cedar. It says no such thing; it says his tail MOVED like a cedar. 2. They ignore the fact that it would have been anatomically impossible for a sauropod to eat grass like an ox; sauropods had neither the jaw articulation nor the teeth to do so. In fact, they needed a gizzard. "He eateth plants like a chicken" would be nearer the mark. Again, this is hand-waved. 3. They brush aside the fact that large portions of the description are CLEARLY poetic. (Drinking up entire rivers?) We are told that the verses THEY say are literal are, while the immediately adjacent verses are not. 4. They completely ignore the fact that the ancient Hebrews knew what Behemoth was: Midrash tradition tells us that he was the great ox, Shor Habar. Whatever happened to "reading the Bible as the original authors would have read it?" That seems to go right out the window when the original authors read it in a way that modern Creationists don't like.

Ditto for many of the "evidences" you cited. Creationists point to the fact that the Bible says the Earth is a circle, and say that it MEANS "sphere." This ignores the fact that the Hebrew word for "circle," chuwg, is NOT synonymous with "sphere." What happened to reading in context?

Please understand that I take Creationist arguments quite seriously--more seriously, in fact, than most Creationists. I don't just hear them and reject them. Nor do I just hear them and accept them. As 1 Thessalonians 5:21 teaches, I test everything and keep that which is good. Sadly, many Creationist arguments are not; they are questionable at best, outright dishonest at worst. --BRPierce (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello BRPierce,
I'm glad that, even though you're not a Creationist, you believe in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Now let's get to your point on Behemoth - that he is not a dinosaur, but an ox. I believe that he was a dinosaur, as you might have expected and, with respect, do not believe that you're arguments are valid. I'm not being stubborn, as that would contradict 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - my own religion, but instead will give reasons:
About Behemoth's tail: You rightly said that Behemoth's tail wasn't said to look like a cedar, but that it moved as a cedar; yet that doesn't contradict the Creationists' belief. You see, if it was an ox, how could its tail move as a cedar? Can an ox's tail sway slowly, or does it flop? However, the actual Hebrew word combined with the context means, "to bend down." This argument alone cannot prove Behemoth to be an ox.
Secondly, how do you know that Job 40:15 didn't simply mean that Behemoth has something in common with oxen - the fact that he eats grass? This doesn't contradict the wording; in fact, the BBE translation says it like this: ". . . he takes grass for food, like the ox." This definitely seems to be the case.
Thirdly yes, it is poetic, but if nothing is literal, then there would be no reason to write what's in this book down. Some things must have been literal; or even Behemoth, the ox, or anything else in the book could mean whatever you would want it to mean, thus destroying any interpretation and meaning.
Finally your fourth reason, Midrash tradition, cannot be in agreement with Job. If Behemoth was a great ox, then why would Job 40:15 say that he eats grass like an ox; how could he be like or as an ox if he was an ox?
You see then that Behemoth was not an ox. Now, the earth being a circle is not a scientific error, since poetically, it could mean anything round. I know you don't like that argument, but it's not a pick-and-choose type of thing; it's based on context. A circle could easily be a sphere in poetry, but what's poetic about Job that would disprove anything I said? Would one say that, for example, since it's poetic, that Behemoth didn't eat grass like an ox; he ate meat like a dog? That would be absurd, since there is no indication in the context that a dog is an ox; the context supports the ox literally being an ox. The Sackinator (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
yet that doesn't contradict the Creationists' belief.
The question isn't whether it contradicts or disproves their belief; the question is whether they have good reason for
holding that belief in the first place. To offer the size of the tail as proof when the Bible says nothing about size,
and then to turn around and say, "Well, the Bible doesn't say the tail WASN'T as big as a cedar!" is extraordinarily weak
argumentation. The Bible also doesn't say Behemoth wasn't purple and musical, but that doesn't make him Barney!
This argument alone cannot prove Behemoth to be an ox.
The argument isn't intended to prove Behemoth to be an ox. It's intended to demonstrate the weakness of the Creationist
"proof" that Behemoth was a dinosaur. A reading of the verse in context, taking into account the understanding of the original culture, is what establishes Behemoth as an ox. I notice you didn't address that at all, so let's emphasize it once again. Behemoth being an ox is not my argument; it's the argument of the ancient Hebrews--the people by whom and for whom the verse was originally written. Selectively ignoring that is exactly the sort of thing that makes me discount Creationist claims of reading the Bible "as it was originally meant to be read."
Secondly, how do you know that Job 40:15 didn't simply mean that Behemoth has something in common with oxen - the fact that he eats grass? This doesn't contradict the wording; in fact, the BBE translation says it like this: ". . . he takes grass for food, like the ox." This definitely seems to be the case.
Hunting for a translation that seems to have wording favorable (or at least not outright contradictory) to the conclusion you wish to reach is hardly "plain and straightforward." However, again, sauropods weren't designed to eat grass. They didn't have the teeth for it; they didn't have the jaws for it.
Finally your fourth reason, Midrash tradition, cannot be in agreement with Job. If Behemoth was a great ox, then why would Job 40:15 say that he eats grass like an ox; how could he be like or as an ox if he was an ox?
...because, of course, he was not an ordinary ox, any more than Leviathan was an ordinary fish. He was Shor Habar, the land-based counterpart to Leviathan. As such, he was a supernatural beast that had many of the aspects of an ox. How casually you shrug off the understanding of the people for whom the Bible was originally written!
You see then that Behemoth was not an ox.
Not a normal ox, no.
Now, the earth being a circle is not a scientific error, since poetically, it could mean anything round.
...except that, again, "round" and "spherical" are not the same thing in Hebrew.
I know you don't like that argument, but it's not a pick-and-choose type of thing; it's based on context.
Meaning no disrespect, but it's my experience that Creationists use "It's based on context" as a way of meaning "It means what I say it means and I don't have to explain why." Explain the context that proves that "chuwg" means something other than its normal meaning in this particular verse. Explain, also, why that portion of the verse is supposed to be taken as poetic, whereas the rest is meant to be taken as literal truth.
Would one say that, for example, since it's poetic, that Behemoth didn't eat grass like an ox; he ate meat like a dog? That would be absurd, since there is no indication in the context that a dog is an ox; the context supports the ox literally being an ox.
...and not a sauropod dinosaur. Seriously: what evidence do you have FOR the Creationist claim that a sauropod dinosaur
is the "plain, evident, and straightforward meaning" of this passage? That a "proper historical reading" supports that, when historically, the Hebrews had a definite understanding of what Behemoth was--and it WASN'T a dinosaur? We haven't even begun to get into the other problems with the Creationists' fanciful interpretation; there are many. But let's stick to this one for the moment. What justifies your implicit assertion that the ancient Hebrews didn't know the meaning of their own holy book, but modern Creationists do? --BRPierce (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You have made powerful arguments, and I commend you for that. But, looking deeper into what you said, I still believe that Behemoth was a dinosaur.
First of all, correct me if I am wrong, but Midrash tradition isn't in favor of the belief that "the Hebrews had a definite understanding of what Behemoth was," but that the Hebrews did NOT have an understanding of it. Was Midrash not used to interpret difficult passages in the Bible? This would mean that it came after the Bible, not before, and was used to interpret what the behemoth was. Unlike the Bible, I do not believe that Midrash tradition is inspired; I do not believe that the Bible needed something to "fill in the gaps". Perhaps the Midrash interpreters came after the exstintion of dinosaurs and believed that no physical, un-supernatural creature like the behemoth fitted this description.
Sticking with the Bible and not what was written later to try to interpret it, the context (I am not trying to say, "It means what I say it means and I don't have to explain why") never mentions the behemoth or Leviathan as a supernatural beast, especially since the other animals talked about in Job, such as horses, are not supernatural, of course. If the ancient Hebrews later believed the behemoth to be a great ox, then they should be able to prove it, not assume it. If the behemoth was a great ox, then shouldn't verse 15 say, "he eateth grass as other oxen"? If you read the behemoth's description, you can conclude that He was talking about a dinosaur, since no other animal fits his description (unless one leaves the Bible and assumes the behemoth to be supernatural). Notice his being able to walk in the Jordan, though its waters gush through his mouth (the verse that speaks of him drinking a river is not what the original Hebrew language said. See it in another translation, such as the NKJV, ASV, etc.). Notice his tail bending as a cedar. If it was an unimpressive tail that moved like other creatures of the world, then there would be no reason to draw attention to it. Only a very large dinosaur can fit the description of its tail moving like a cedar. Cedars do not move from place to place; they sway in the wind. They are large at the base and smaller at the tip which also describes the tail of large dinosaur remains. Any creature that has a tail which moves like a cedar would have to have very strong muscles in his stomach and thighs, and that's what we are told (v. 16-18). That's what I mean by context.
For the earth being round, does the English word circle not mean "a three-dimensional object" either? When something's poetic, the word can be used more loosely than when it's not. We know that Jesus taught that there would be a time when ". . . there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Does this not describe the three-dimensional earth in which there is night when people are asleep and day when people are working?
I was using the BBE as more of a side point, not the main argument, as it directly supported what I said. However, the other translations, which I believe to translate this verse more accurately, still don't contradict what I said, thus making the ability to prove the "Behemoth ate grass in the same way as cattle" argument in-valid. If I am wrong on anything please let me know. The Sackinator (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


You have made powerful arguments, and I commend you for that. But, looking deeper into what you said, I still believe that Behemoth was a dinosaur.
Thank you. Let me ask you this: what evidence would convince you otherwise?
First of all, correct me if I am wrong, but Midrash tradition isn't in favor of the belief that "the Hebrews had a definite understanding of what Behemoth was," but that the Hebrews did NOT have an understanding of it. Was Midrash not used to interpret difficult passages in the Bible? This would mean that it came after the Bible, not before, and was used to interpret what the behemoth was. Unlike the Bible, I do not believe that Midrash tradition is inspired; I do not believe that the Bible needed something to "fill in the gaps". Perhaps the Midrash interpreters came after the exstintion of dinosaurs and believed that no physical, un-supernatural creature like the behemoth fitted this description.
Respectfully, how is this exegesis? How is this a "plain and straightforward" reading of the text as it would have originally been understood? Are you suggesting that understanding the meaning of God's Word requires knowledge of paleontology? That His Chosen People were unable to understand the book He wrote for them because they lacked the necessary knowledge to understand it? And if THEY lacked sufficient scientific knowledge to properly understand the meaning of the Bible, then how can you be confident that we have sufficient scientific knowledge to properly understand it today?
Sticking with the Bible and not what was written later to try to interpret it, the context (I am not trying to say, "It means what I say it means and I don't have to explain why") never mentions the behemoth or Leviathan as a supernatural beast, especially since the other animals talked about in Job, such as horses, are not supernatural, of course.
It's an animal that can drink entire rivers; how is that not supernatural? And if you reject that description as inaccurate, then you're opening up a very large can of worms--because you then have to explain how you know which translation of the Bible is correct. If the KJV can be flat-out wrong about such a point, what prevents other translations from being similarly wrong?
If you read the behemoth's description, you can conclude that He was talking about a dinosaur, since no other animal fits his description (unless one leaves the Bible and assumes the behemoth to be supernatural). Notice his being able to walk in the Jordan, though its waters gush through his mouth (the verse that speaks of him drinking a river is not what the original Hebrew language said. See it in another translation, such as the NKJV, ASV, etc.).
You're picking and choosing the translation which suits your conclusion. Are you suggesting that only certain translations of the Bible are reliable? If so, which ones? How do you know? You're also cherry-picking aspects of the description while disregarding others, as I will demonstrate below.
Notice his tail bending as a cedar. If it was an unimpressive tail that moved like other creatures of the world, then there would be no reason to draw attention to it. Only a very large dinosaur can fit the description of its tail moving like a cedar.
...in your opinion. Again, you're reading a tremendous amount into the text that's not there. These are YOUR assumptions and YOUR opinions--not God's Word. A tail which sways is all that would be required to fulfill what the Bible actually says.
Cedars do not move from place to place; they sway in the wind. They are large at the base and smaller at the tip which also describes the tail of large dinosaur remains. Any creature that has a tail which moves like a cedar would have to have very strong muscles in his stomach and thighs, and that's what we are told (v. 16-18). That's what I mean by context.
I would again call that "reading into the text." You are, if you'll pardon my paraphrasing Ken Ham, "reading through dinosaur-colored glasses." The verses which would contradict your conclusion, you dismiss as inaccurate or "poetic," while you conclude that the verses which seem to you to support your desired conclusion should be taken literally. Behemoth sheltered under the lotus plants, something no sauropod could do. He could hide among the reeds of the marsh. How, pray tell, would a sauropod do that? Even the smallest were well over 20 feet tall, and the largest were over 60 feet tall!
For the earth being round, does the English word circle not mean "a three-dimensional object" either? When something's poetic, the word can be used more loosely than when it's not.
This is, in my opinion, the critical mistake inerrantists make. They assume that English connotations are applicable to other languages. Whether or not the ENGLISH word "circle" can have the connotation of "sphere" is irrelevant to whether the HEBREW word for "circle" can have the same connotation. The English word "cool" can have the connotation of "very good." Should we therefore assume that the Hebrew word "laruah" can also mean "very good?" For that matter, the English word "wicked" can have the connotation of "very good." Shall we assume that when something is described in the Bible as "wicked," it may in fact be "very good?" Of course not--because the Hebrew word used had no such connotation.



We know that Jesus taught that there would be a time when ". . . there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Does this not describe the three-dimensional earth in which there is night when people are asleep and day when people are working?
Take a step back and look at what you're arguing. Do you REALLY think that a "plain and straightforward" reading of that verse indicates a round Earth? I think you're reading a TREMENDOUS amount into it...and, to be honest, I think that most inerrantists do exactly the same thing. This strikes me as no different from the inerrantists who claim that a "plain and straightforward" reading of Job 38:31 is that it's a commentary on astrophysics and the gravitational dynamics of constellations!
--BRPierce (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You said, after I claimed that Midrash tradition's teaching is contrary to Job's, "Respectfully, . . . How is this a 'plain and straightforward' reading of the text as it would have originally been understood? Are you suggesting that understanding the meaning of God's Word requires knowledge of paleontology? That His Chosen People were unable to understand the book He wrote for them because they lacked the necessary knowledge to understand it? And if THEY lacked sufficient scientific knowledge to properly understand the meaning of the Bible, then how can you be confident that we have sufficient scientific knowledge to properly understand it today?" I never said that the Jews were unable to understand the book He wrote for them because they lacked the necessary scientific knowledge to understand it. The purpose of this Scripture, I believe, is to demonstrate God's power (I'm not trying to make up my own context. See this for yourself in verses 2, 8, and 9, to mention some). The part of this chapter that is on the behemoth was written to show that, since He could create a creature with such characteristics as the behemoth, He must be powerful. Whether or not the Jews of that time knew Behemoth's exact identity was not whether or not they knew God's Word, since they could know this passage's point - that there either is or was a creature like that that God was able to make. Also, we Christians today are still to read the Old Testament writings to give us examples (1 Cor. 10:6-11), not Jews only .
About the behemoth drinking rivers: You said that, in order for me to deny the King James translation, I would have to be "opening up a very large can of worms," since I'd have to explain why I said thus. The reason for me denying the translation for this particular Scripture is not because it appears to make the behemoth supernatural, as it at first may sound, but because of two reasons:
1. The original Hebrew words that were used disagree with the KJV. For example, when the KJV translated the Hebrew word that I believe is pronounced, aw-shak’, to "drinketh up". The actual word, according to ONLINE BIBLE LEXICON, means thus:
"1) to press upon, oppress, violate, defraud, do violence, get deceitfully, wrong, extort
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to oppress, wrong, extort
1a2) to oppress
1b) (Pual) to be exploited, be crushed."
2. 47 scholars translated the KJV (including the ones who didn't finish would total 54); 130 did the NKJV, which doesn't translate it as drinking; also, 30 scholars did the ASV, which agrees with the NKJV. That alone is 160 scholars, but all translations that I've looked in (except the KJV) agrre with what I said.
Therefore, there is no strong evidence for Behemoth to have drunk entire rivers, unless you were to stray from what you told me; you've told me: "Hunting for a translation that seems to have wording favorable (or at least not outright contradictory) to the conclusion you wish to reach is hardly 'plain and straightforward.'" So again, I ask: How can one make the conclusion, purely on what the biblical text states, that the behemoth was a supernatural ox? I don't even think that the Bible mentions supernatural beings as being animals (unless maybe, you go to Revelation, a book that's intended to be figurative).
When I said, "Notice his tail bending as a cedar. If it was an unimpressive tail that moved like other creatures of the world, then there would be no reason to draw attention to it. Only a very large dinosaur can fit the description of its tail moving like a cedar," you said that this was true in my opinion. How is this false? You said, "A tail which sways is all that would be required to fulfill what the Bible actually says." No, it's not; a tail that sways and fits the rest of the description is all that's needed. What other animal moves its tail like a cedar and fits the rest of the description?
I'll commend you for your next argument; at first, it did seem powerful: "Behemoth sheltered under the lotus plants, something no sauropod could do." He did lie under the lotus plants, but he lay under what these plants were in - a covert of reeds and marsh; he was in something, the marsh. The idea is not that he could just lie under any lotus plant, but that he took shelter and a hiding spot under them in a marsh. The Behemoth would descend into the depths of a swamp and use the lotus trees as a hedge or partition to hide himself.
You said that just because an English word may have multiple meanings, it doesn't prove the Hebrew word had those same meanings. Actually, I agree with you. I apologize for the poor wording I used; I actually meant, "For the earth being round, doesn't the English word circle mean 'a round, two-dimensional object' as well?" When something's poetic, the word can be used more loosely than when it's not. For example, when Hannah said, ". . . mine horn is exalted in the LORD . . ." (1st Sam. 2:1 KJV) the word horn used here is figurative for strength.
You accused me of saying that a passage in scripture is poetic when I don't like it and literal when I do. That's not true. For example, in the same chapter when the Bible says, "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them" (1st Sam. 2:8), it may seem like this passage teaches that the earth is held up by pillars. However, the pillars of the earth represent the Lord's prophets, His governors, etc., which He uses to uphold the earth - not the globe, but the people. Notice that God made Jeremiah a pillar (Jer. 1:17, 18). Furthermore, in a similar poetical way, Jesus makes His people pillars (Rev. 3:12). How could you prove that pillars have to be non-figurative in this passage? Why should anyone try to force these passages to be literal and forget about the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible (i.e. Job 26:7, which speaks that the earth is not hung on anything; and other scientifically correct passages like Ecc. 1:6, 7.) How did they know these scientific facts if there wasn't a God to inspire them? If I'm not correctly interpreting verses like, say, Job 26:7, how should it be interpreted; what does it really mean if I'm wrong?
What did I mis-interpret regarding Luke 17: 34-37?
I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you, and I await your response, The Sackinator (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've found this whole discussion very interesting, but it is very un-Wikipedia-related. If either of you have anything more to add to this argument, please do so on another website. --UserJDalek 04:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

educational institutions affiliated with the churches of christ[edit]

I think your edit limiting educational institutions affiliated with churches of Christ recognizes one problem but causes another. There are of course institutions that are in some way "associated" with non-institutional churches (see Florida College [1] for example). I don't mean to claim that they "support" these institutions, but they do exist, and they do have a relationship. How can that relationship be recognized in a way acceptable to the "non-institutional" crowd? I thought affiliated was good...according to dictionary.com affiliated is defined as "being in close formal or informal association; related: a letter sent to all affiliated clubs; a radio network and its affiliated local stations.". Accordingly, can an institution not be "affiliated" with a "non-instituional" organization? In any case, I'm going to leave it to your inspiration for now...at the least, close the parentheses. Thanks!jacona fire (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the individual members may or may not be “affiliated” in the technical sense to those colleges. However, educational institutions (a word which might accidentally imply that they send money and/or other resources) have nothing more to do with non-institutional churches than anything else that members are a part of. For example, we wouldn't say in the article something like, “Churches of Christ are affiliated with the Pittsburgh Steelers,” just because there are members of the church of Christ who root for or even play for the Pittsburgh Steelers (I'm not saying that there are members who play for them but am making an example). So, that's how I see it. —The Sackinator (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Churches of Christ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ben Carson sources[edit]

Yes, all the core content policies refer to the importance of secondary sources. Wikipedia:No original research in particular states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So you can use the primary source, but you also generally need a secondary source to show that this is something that is notable and not being given undue weight. If not for this, we could just put quotes from the whole book in the article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! What would examples of reliable secondary sources be for that article? News channels? —The Sackinator (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Viewing edit summaries[edit]

Hi Sackinator.

In case you aren't aware, if you want to find out why someone made a particular change to and article or why an edit you made was undone, you can check for comments made in the 'edit summary'. You can view edit summaries by going to the article, then clicking the 'View History' link in the top-right corner. Beside most edits will be a short description of what was changed and why, often with a link to a relevant Wikipedia policy. Please take a look at this with regard to the recent edits on LittleBigPlanet to see why I changed the capitalisation of "Hub" back after your edit. Thanks. Chimpanzee Us | Ta | Co 08:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the link you put. Sorry about that. —The Sackinator (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ben Carson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Memphis business Academy of Achievement]], and the [[Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans]]. In 2000, Carson received the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.christianchronicle.org/article/a-non-institutional-institution