Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal consistency of the Bible/tables


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. - Philippe 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the Bible/tables

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: Subpage created to preserve text which was removed from original article, but which was too big to place on the article's talk page. The charts violate WP:OR and WP:SYN. Charts were discussed on the WP:OR noticeboard, where agreement was reached that they cannot be repaired because the entirety of the charts violate WP:SYN. Removal unchallenged on the main article's talk page Faith (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's hard to see how such a table could be anything but WP:OR and WP:SYN. It is clearly a large amount of work, but unfortunately not appropriate for Wikipedia. Frank  |  talk  16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR.--Berig (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not think it is OR. The first part in particular is solid. The accounts of the events in the synoptic gospels and in John are very well known and obvious. How they are to be resolved in not the least obvious of course, and has been discussed for about the last 1900 years from every possible perspective and in a great many books devoted specifically to this problem. the final column of resolutions does not of corse give every possible resolution, but it is sourced to standard works. More can be added.  The assorted ones in the second table are a variety of things: discrepancies between the gospels and the epistles, and differences between the OT and the NT.  Probably a few thousand books in English of the first problem, and a few tens of thousands on the second at least, since its fundamental to the theological basis of Christianity. Again, there are standard views. I think the problems can be dealt with.  As for POV,, it is true that these discrepancies (or apparent discrepancies) have often been used to support a skeptical or even atheistic view--but they have also been used in a purely supportive sense within the religion.  This is all dealt with of course in the main article, but I think the tabular presentation here also helps. DGG (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The properly cited scholarly sources in the response column are mostly new and added by me, where I tried to delete the uncited sources regardless of Christian or critic POV (here is the original version before I started editing it ; example from the original: How many angels were at the tomb? One (28:2) One (16:5) Two (24:4) Two (20:1-2, 12), definite OR/SYN!) However, the fact remains that the problem isn't scholarly treatment of a reply, but that the entire charts violate WP:SYN. The introduction set the stage indicating everything the reader sees on the chart indicates error and/or inconsistency, then the charts suffer from overall WP:OR violations with uncited and poorly worded questions (even my attempts to bring them to neutrality still violates WP:OR because they don't come from reliable sources) and WP:SYN by applying misleading Scripture (taken out-of-context in a manner that changes how it would be read in the original context to an opposite or at least very different reader understanding) to the bad questions.  We can't treat these examples as "very well known and obvious"; there are no reliable sources that use the questions' wording.  WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information, especially from email and internet spam. --Faith (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * good. you're showing how to improve it by your editing. The first part's wording of questions is about as neutral as you can get. Remember that the context is "internal consistency in the bible" -- the article is from that perspective, not what may or may not have happened historically, which is another topic entirely. DGG (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, again, it's WP:OR, simply my OR cleaing up someone else's OR. Faith (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.