User talk:Kata Markon

Discussion
Hi, I notice that you're making a lot of controversial edits. Would you please discuss your edits on the relevant talk pages? Because the reasons for your edits are difficult to understand, they are often reverted. --TS 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark 16
Hello. I'll try to give below my rationale for the edits I've made.

I removed "Other Gospels display evidence of having appendages not original to the text, such as Luke's infancy narrative and John's ending" because the article is primary concerned with textual criticism, not higher criticism. Luke's infancy narrative and John 21 are not disputed in the manuscripts, though some scholars doubt them for literary reasons, which is a somewhat separate field. I thought the addition to not be relevant to the subject.

For the footnote, "This suggested by J.K. Elliott. Daniel Wallace stated this at the 2008 Greer-Heard Counterpoint Forum, in debating Bart Ehrman." I deleted the "Daniel Wallace" sentence because I originally included that as my reference (I didn't know of any other reference to this idea). Since the original suggestion is from J.K. Elliott, I removed the Daniel Wallace sentence as unnecessary.

Under "Patristic Evidence" (which I think probably would be better as "patristic citations") I deleted "Ambrose, bishop of Milan in the early 300's, quoted from this passage" because I cannot check this information against a reference. All patristic evidence provided with references that I checked and found valid I left in.

For the Augustine citation, it didn't seem to me that "Mark 16:9-20 was incorporated into the text early in church history" made including Augustine necessary, since he would have been drawing on an already ancient tradition in including Mark 16:9-20.

I deleted "Jerome, although sometimes miscited as if he rejected the passage, included it in the Vulgate (383), which he claimed he produced on the basis of old Greek manuscripts" because in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament," under Mark 16:9-20, he says, "Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them." If the comment about Jerome including it because of "old Greek manuscripts" can be verified, then I will keep it in. Jerome may (I speculate) have included the pericope because of tradition.

I changed "Few doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark" to "No doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark" because the only exception to this (that I know of) is the Pentecostal groups listed below this sentence. Research into the beliefs of the major denominations will, I think, corroborate this.

--Kata Markon (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Kata Markon

Moon Landings
It seems like my moon landings hoax edits were reverted, too. I removed some of that section because it seemed pro-moon hoax theory in its tone, while the rest of the article is contra-moon hoax. I also thought the statement, "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations have been debunked" as not fitting quite right at the beginning of an article - plus it seemed unnecessary, since the rest of the article thoroughly refutes the hoax theory. Hopefully that helps clarify my edit. --Kata Markon (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Kata Markon