Deletion of Unscientific claims in religious scriptures

Comment: This article inherently involves too much interpreting beyond what the sources say.  will surely be prevalent here. Looking at the contents of the section on the shape of the earth - it already violates Wikipedia rules since the NASA site and the National Geodetic Survey does not even address the Bible at all and is already doing synthesis which constitutes original research . Not only that, but since well educated theologians and scientists themselves have diverse interpretations of many of the ideas, this article will not provide any valuable insights and will provide too much debating and disagreements between interpretations of the scriptural texts and interpretations of what they ''really'' mean. Also this article would likely lead to people contributing more original research due to the article title itself. Furthermore, since this article would not represent the majorities of interpretations among experts who actually study these scriptures and verses, or science, this article would fall under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OR||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as /. Only primary sources are given for the scriptures, and it is far from clear any that scientific claims (as opposed to metaphors) are being made in the passages quoted. Also this list fails . -- Special:Contributions/101.119.15.118|101.119.15.118
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:LISTN)

Comment: This is very much oint of view and riginal Research (). It is also  |impossibly broad in its subject material, arguments from the bible alone could probably create many massive articles. First the bible is often regarded by Christians as not being literal, things like "The four corners of The Earth." are regarded as a metaphor by many, and not a strict interpretation that the world is flat, arguing a metaphor is unscientific is difficult
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:O||WP:SYNTH||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: There is probably scope for at least one good article about the relationship between scripture and science, and there are many fine scholarly works which could be used as sources. There's more than enough material in the RSs about the archaeological evidence for and against the Hebrew Bible to write a slew of articles on that alone.ON the other hand, even the title tells us that this page is a |POV-pushing exercise.  It's content is a pile of |synthesis, and it relies on crass  interpretations of primary sources.  It's says something sad about the state of WP processes that this sort of thing even requires a discussion before being shredded and burnt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYN||WP:OR)