User talk:2601:401:1:52D6:BDE5:C4E0:69B4:C24D

July 2018
Hello, I'm JC7V7DC5768. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The "information" was removed because it was a subjective polemic, not objective fact or even objectively presented speculation/commentary. I don't even necessarily disagree with it, I removed it because it was horribly written and it was painfully obvious that whoever wrote it was incredibly biased. It was not censorship.

Most egregious was this:

"The traditional Christian view of Psalm 82 that interprets "gods" as humans, strips the passage of its original supernatural meaning, violates proper contextual interpretation of scripture, and is incoherent with the major supernatural divine council narrative woven throughout the Old and New Testaments."

The presumption of a single "correct interpretation" of a religious text is incredibly slanted as well:

"A correct interpretation of this passage must be derived from the worldview of the ancient Hebrews, and their Ancient Near Eastern environment, which is the context that produced Psalm 82."

Same presumptuousness here:

"Hence the correct interpretation of Psalm 82, is that God is holding court in the divine council of the elohim (gods), and sentencing them for their malpractice after assigning the postdiluvian nations to their liege, after the Tower of Babel apostasy, in Deuteronomy 32:8."

Again, I don't fully disagree with these statements. But they do not have any place in the article in question.