User talk:Tigermoon/commentsToClaire

Creation according to Genesis
Here are some references which should help you point out to Mr/Mrs Purple that your text is a genuine academic opinion

Documentary hypothesis

Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990. Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987. Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen Oxford University Press, 2003. Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986 Wiseman, P. J. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985

Had some trouble finding the text you mentioned, could only find it in the edit history, did you delete it?

Anyway, the University of Liverpool is rubbish, its an ex-polytechnic. Kenneth Kitchen's subject area is not biblical criticism, so this statement is probably from his opinion as a Christian, so shouldn't go in the article, pointing out that he is a university professor is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that he is making the statement from a non-academic stance. P.s. Professor Kitchen identifies himself as an evangelical, so is hardly unbiased.

I do think there should be an explanation of who supports which sides, but it should be something like "Advocates of the theories" not "Topical focus". The timescale section should be renamed "Plants".

The single POV has more weighting which is biased, should be reduced to

"...wished(typo) to emphasize (Elohim suggesting &#8220;strength,&#8221 - God as the mighty Creator, and Yahweh suggesting moral and spiritual natures of deity - particularly in relationship to man)"

I found this "However, there is no mention of Lilith anywhere in scripture". Its someones POV disclaimer. Its also not true. There is 1 mention by name (Isaiah 34:14 - often deliberately mis-translated "night owl"), and other implicit mentions. - Remove this and replace Lilith with Lilith (usually referred to indirectly except at Isaiah 34:14 (some modern tranlations translate her name into "night owl"))

Birds-needs to be tidied up, seems like it developed as an argument between contributers. Some sentences are irrelevant/duplicate the same argument.

Add a comment on bias of weighting the text to have hugh pro-one side essays, and small pro-other side sentences.

Style- tidy again the two passages into Proponents of the single account argue that style differences are not indicative of multiple authors, but simply indicate the purpose of different passages. For Example, Kenneth Kitchen (an evangelical Christian and retired Archaeology Professor of the University of Liverpool), have argued that stylistic differences are meaningless, using the evidence of such things as a biographical inscription of an Egyptian official in 2400 B.C., which reflects at least four different styles, but about which no one denies the unity of authorship.

The phrase "It goes without saying that a young graduate student&#8217;s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper" is obfuscation - a young graduate isn't going to write a love letter as the first few parts of his research paper.

The large (hidden) text about PT Reis' proposals is ridiculously vague, and seems, on careful analysis, to be pro-one account (but written in a way to obfuscate this). It is about the style issue, and doesn't seem like it belongs as a seperate discourse. Should be rewritten, as this isn't a place for writing novels.

Talk Historicity
- Sam's edit removed the critical version of the sources text is this why he made it?

Talk Jesus (fame section)
- He thinks your a bloke!!!! - I don't see why his claiming to be an atheist means he is (his views on this and other points seem to point to the opposite), and I agree with you he seems to be Sam Spade - maybe the I am an atheist statement was to "proove" that he was not. - His reference to James Still is irrelevant - anyone can write anything they like on a website, it doesn't make it true. - That infidels link he gave lead me to this http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/price1.html - and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/dialogue.html - (these links ought to go on the historicity page)

I also found this quote: -

" The Jesus Seminar, a Christian seminar, concluded that the man Jesus may have existed, but that only 20% of what is claimed in the Bible that Jesus is suppossed to have said or done could even *possibly* be true, and that there is no historical proof for his existence "

Evolutionism
Can't see why you think Mr Purple is a creationist - he agrees with that guy about Evolutionism being a derogatory phrase.

Creation vs. evolution debate
The phrase you changed to neutrality was moved, and "it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove any theory" substitited which isnt neutral. You might like to change this.

Cultural and historical background
That evo-guy you mentioned has lost it. Just state the "no personal research" thing - someone like him pointed to it earlier. I think Grutter's alernative is fairly equivalent to the one you supported, so you shouldn't have any problems getting it to consensus.

According to FT2 you have apparantly apologised, but I can't see where. He also has commented on the research, so you ought to duplicate the principle there, maybe suggest the "no personal research thing" should be discounted?