User:Arbeiter/MyEditArguments

2006-Aug-25
Deleted:
 * The Bible says very little about physical cosmology, such as the position of the earth in the universe, the nature of the fixed stars and planets, seeing as its main emphasis was on the history of God’s dealings with man. Skeptics argue that the Bible is written from a flat earth perspective[1] although this is not made explicit in any of the canonical books of the Bible.

This statement contradicted the numerous citations provided in the article. Also, It is presumptuous to declare the motives and philosophies of people with this proposal. I am sure members of the "Association for Biblical Astronomy" would be horrified by this statement.

Edited retaining many concepts:
 * Much of what the Bible says concerning cosmology is couched in terminology whose definitions are uncertain and disputed by Hebrew scholars. Another difficulty in recognizing Biblical cosmology is that at times the Bible condemns as apostasy beliefs such as the worship of the sun, moon, naked eye planets and stars, cosmology derived from other religions and not from the Bible.

It might not be safe for me to throw too many stones on this subject, but if making sweeping statements or backing your own statements with "scholars", "experts", or other dogmatic sources, I feel justified asking for references. Also, I doubt you meant "apostasy" in that context.

Deleted: Some scholars claim that what is often taught as “Biblical Cosmology” is actually medieval cosmology, which was a bastardized mixture of Hebrew terminology and Greek philosophy. An example of that is the reference to the four elements, which is nowhere found in the Bible.
 * Again, "scholars" and sweeping statement without references. OK, but this is not the type of "reference" about which I was talking; I meant the citation kind. Perhaps examples should point out what Biblical cosmology "is", instead of what it "is not".

Edited retaining some concepts:
 * The material for the subject is meager, dependence for the most part having to be placed on ambiguous references chiefly in the poetical sections. As such, these poetic references could be taken as poetic exaggerations and the ancient writers had no intention that they should be understood as literal expressions of their cosmology.

Let the reader decide what is meager. Again, it is presumptuous to declare the writers' intent in this last, grammatically-challenged sentence.

Merged: "Big Bang Theory" into its preceding format

Deleted: "Planets" The scriptures cited all refer to the concept that "heavenly bodies should not be worshipped". This concept that was already stated and probably doesn't belong in an article about cosmology anyway.

Renamed: "Modern-day..." to "Modern movements in"

Minor Chicago_manual_of_style changes

Arguing against the contributions of Andrew c
Regarding the text below... It is presumptuous to declare built-in beliefs or motives of persons attempting to interpret Scripture.


 * Biblical literalism is a Christian belief that the Bible should be interpreted in a literal manner, see also Biblical hermeneutics.

Regarding the text below... Such statements belong in the section, Biblical_literalism, and not the opening descriptive paragraphs.


 * It is closely associated with biblical inerrancy and held most commonly by conservative christians. It is often associated with Creationism.

Regarding the text below... By adding "a priori", you imposed your POV to Biblical literalism. "Young Earth Creationists (YEC)" and the good folk with the "Association for Biblical Astronomy" passionately argue their Biblical literalism is entirely consistant with experience. Even if it were not a POV adjective, it is unnecessary philosophical jargon for which it is difficult to provide a proper definition.


 * By comparing Scriptures such as Proverbs 30:5-6 with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, proponents of Biblical literalism begin with an a priori belief that the Bible is flawlessly true.

Regarding the text below... The capital "S" on "Scripture" was intentional. The capital "S" distinguishes Holy Scripture from the slightly less authoritative scripture... "Young cat, if you keep your eyes open enough, oh, the stuff you would learn! The most wonderful stuff!" --Dr. Suess


 * Next, proponents claim that metaphorical and allegorical statements are inherently untrue at some level. Additionally, proponents claim that the various interpretations of scriptures deemed metaphorical and allegorical splinter the Bible's meaning, and provide an inconsistent, and therefore flawed message.

Following the recomendations of DixiePixie
I relegated the term "Biblical hermeneutics" to the "See also" section. Such theological jargon created more questions than clarity where it was placed. I also relegated Bullinger's "Figures of Speech" and Morgan's "Biblical Inconsistencies" to a "Further reading" section.