Talk:Bible prophecy

NPOV dispute (moved from top of talk page)

NPOV dispute: I don't see the point in removing the entire article under the subheading "Modern Perspectives by non evangelicals" due to the claim it was a POV article. The entire subsection has been removed with it now. To remove the entire sub section is to make the entire Wikpedia page a POV from the Evangelical perspective. The article conformed to the subheading and referenced a major non evangelical site as one example of the perspective in question. After all, the subheading is (was) seeking for a perspective from the non evangelical POV. It was for anybody to read and come to their own conclusion. Removing the entire sub section can be construed as a Wikpedian merely not approving of the perspective.

(erroneously added to top of talk page and unsigned - moved from top of talk page to here by Clinkophonist)

Source needed

Don't you need to identify where it is said that some scholars dont find prophecies in the bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.102 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyre

In Levituss Tyre is being admonished and is being said to have once been a garden. Was14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)174.96.99.186 (talk) this the garden of eden?

Neutrality

If a non Christian point of view is necessary, can this article be reorganised to separate Christian and non Christian points of view. I personally think Bible prophecy should be explained by Christians, and not by Muslims or atheists or others. After all, the objective of an encyclopedia should be to describe and explain what a topic is rather than what it is not. SLWG (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a neutral exposition of what bible prophecy is.

It is full of passages that reveal people's points of view, some stating that it is true, others mainly negative (eg. the word "Supposed"). I am a Christian, but I'm sure I could write a neutral objective article on Atheism, describing what it is, what atheists think, what it's roots are and so on without putting in what my personal view is. Surely this should be about what people believe, rather than whether what they believe is true or not or, even worse, whether the author thinks it is true or not.

I rarely post my opinion, but my hope is that someone can be objective about the material.

This kind of thing just undermines and chips away at Wikipedia's credibility.

AbsoluteZero01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteZero01 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

All this leading me to the belief that Wikipedia is not actually neutral. They tend toward evolution and atheism, after all. Still looking for a Christian all-encompassing wiki... 172.77.246.12 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does treat evolution as a fact. For the full Wikipedia policy that describes what Wikipedia means by neutral, see WP:NEUTRAL. In general, just to simplify things a little, Wikipedia's point of view is similar to the point of view found at Ivy League and public colleges in the US. Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" leans heavily in the direction of what is found in what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources" WP:RS and does not always match what some people would think of as neutrality or reliability. Alephb (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I would again say that treating it as a fact is not neutral, even though reliable sources and the Ivy League say it is a fact, as it is a blatant disregard of the scientific method. There have never been any observances of an organism gaining genes, as evolution requires. Also, similar bone structures among organisms are not controlled by the same genes. And, Richard Dawkins himself said he's forced to be biased because he won't accept Creationism. Do you think that sounds neutral? (Please be kind in your response.) 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, you don't treat the Bible as a reliable source? Even though its historical text has never been proven wrong? Ever? Even though it's a religious text, it still has tremendous credibility. Try me. And if Wikipedia can't accept that, I'd have to say, for all intents and purposes, they're atheistic. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that arguing back and forth about the truth of the Bible, or about the truth of evolution, would be an interesting exercise. However, that's not really what Wikipedia talk pages are for. In this case, the page is about discussing ways to improve the article "Bible prophecy." And Wikipedia's goal isn't to find what's true and then put that in the article, as strange as that may sound. They even have a policy about this, called "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:NOTTRUTH). Basically, the policy is that Wikipedia editors do not (on controversial issues) try to discover what's true; they just relay the opinion of mainstream university/published/peer-reviewed/etc. sorts of materials (WP:SOURCE).

So my advice is this. Don't come to Wikipedia expect it to reflect the results of editorial discussions that are seeking to find the truth. That's not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia just relays what the educational/academic establishment believes. If you want to change that, as far as I know you've got three options. (1) You can go into academia and try to change it from within, and eventually that will change Wikipedia indirectly. (2) You can try to convince the controlling organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, to change its policies about what it considers "reliable." Or (3) You can work on trying to help some alternative project, like Conservapedia. But if you're here to try to get Wikipedia adopt views that are rejected by mainstream secular college academics, you're just going to wind up frustrated. Wikipedia calls that kind of activity "POV-pushing" (WP:POV), and it gets reverted and eventually winds up getting people who do it too much blocked from editing. Alephb (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Very enlightening! Thank you for sharing this; I wish everyone knew this about Wikipedia. Although coming out of all this, I would have to again say that even though it's the secular view, it's still not neutral as it disregards Christian views. I get why. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The quality of religious coverage varies from article to article. Some do a better job than others. But it would be good if more people understood what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. It would also make things run a lot smoother here. And it would allow the public to understand that, when they read a Wikipedia article (if that Wikipedia article is up to standards) they are basically learning the standard academic view on the subject as its taught in secular universities. Whenever the academic establishment is right, Wikipedia is usually right with them. When it's wrong, Wikipedia is wrong with them. Here's a bit from an essay where Wikipedia lays some of that out (this essay is not official policy, but the basic view it provides is basically in line with Wikipedia policy and how things work here. You can find the essay at WP:FLAT.

"If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing."

So I think Wikipedia provides a valuable service. It tells us what the universities and peer-reviewed sources are mostly teaching. But we always have to ask ourselves whether we personally agree with the universities. Alephb (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All this is interesting and all, but this argument necessitates that Wikipedia will never, ever accept the Truth. Why? Because it's based on secular authorities. Those authorities will cease to be secular if they approve the Bible, and thus Wikipedia will consider them to be unreliable. Wikipedia will also never consider sources like Answers in Genesis because they speak the Bible, thus making them cease to be independent (like the Flat Earth Society). Thus Wikipedia is secular. That I have stated, and that no one can deny.

Also, the example of the earth being flat is void. The only way it would work is if there was a viable argument for the earth being flat. There isn't. There are valid arguments for the Bible being true (as seen in this article!) and for evolution being false^[1]. You can't apply WP:FLAT. And even though Wikipedia's policy is to follow the Ivy League, I believe they should speak the truth, not a widely accepted (likely false) theory. But like I said, that will never happen, and I wish that everyone who visited this website would understand that.

I know this thread has gotten a bit off-topic, but I think it's important. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we have gotten a little off-topic, maybe, but it's always good to educate people on what Wikipedia is and isn't. Of course, Christians are always welcome to set up their own alternative to Wikipedia. They could even copy Wikipedia articles into their own site and remove whatever spin they don't like. That's the beauty of Wikipedia's liberal copyright policy. So far the closest anyone has come is Conservapedia, which so far has not got the level of religious covered that Wikipedia has. Compare Wikipedia's Nehemiah article (which acknowledges the likely historical reality of Nehemiah and goes into great depth) with the Conservapedia Nehemiah article, which is barely a tiny stub. Until people with alternative views build a good alternative Wiki, Wikipedia is going to be what people go to for information. So far, the only people who have bothered to put together a large general-purpose project like Wikipedia have been the pro-university types. All right. I think I'll stop now so that we don't distract too much from the point of this article. Alephb (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I have reverted WP:OR which violates WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)