Bible Wiki talk:Biblical Point of View

== Wikipedia's POV ==
Wikipedia's "neutral" point of view isn't very neutral. Having editted with Wikipedia, I have seen their point of view. Their point of view is whatever is popular. It is more of a popular point of view, what the crowd's point of view is. It supports evolution, for example, like it is absolute truth. And it also treats biblical stories as every other religions' stories. A Child of God (talk) 15:15, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
===RE:Superdadsuper===
Precisely. Wikipedia says it is a neutral, when biblically this is not possible and there is clear bias against the Bible (for example statements of anti biblical scholars are often more cited and considered as the majority). On this article we say "neutral" for Wikipedia as that is what they claim to be. Hopefully God will bless our efforts and we can provide a source of information on the Bible as detailed as Wikipedia but presenting it truthfully
In Christ,
Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat
===Re:"Neutrality"===
I'd hate to get into an argument, but I'm afraid not everyone can learn from a story that implies penguins lived somewhere in Iraq. 
Anyhow, Wikipedia supports reason, and I do as well. God can't logically exist to a human, but God transcends our understanding. Thus, this Wiki was needed. 
~ Ασήμι Αρνάκι Worthy Lamb, slain for the Lost. 01:48, October 10, 2016 (UTC)
===Re: This wiki uses reason===
I am not quite sure what your point is about "Penguins living in Iraq" or "the wiki is needed". Do you have something specific you are trying to point out (I am confused by what your intention is). Nevertheless, whether or not you mentioned this, Bible Wiki is very logical. The site takes plain statements from the Bible, which gives many things "as-is" in the historical portions. However, much of the New Testament is infact commentary on the Old Testament's history. 
In addition to given what is either stated, or logically reasoned by Scripture we can also give further historical anaylsis. Oftentimes this requires looking at implications and inferences. While indeed its an important part of our Scriptual understanding we must be careful to present what is not directly stated in the Bible as from the Bible. In addition it can be dangerous to make false assumptions. The goal of this wiki is to be as detailed as Wikipedia, providing literary anaylsis as well. In some cases there is even historical ideas presented on this site, derrived from etymological or linguistic implications. Where we differ is that we recongize some of the events and authorship of the Bible are miraclous (thus outside of "logical" phenomna), as well as trying not to present things not given by the Bible as from the Bible. For example while a historical conclusion may be helpful in understanding the text, we cannot treat it as the Bible directly gave it. What we can do is expand upon implications or inferences made by Scripture, with of course presenting other biblically plausible ideas against or along with that.
Again I don't know what the point of your comment is. Nevertheless this wiki does perform some literary, historical and etymological/linguistic anaylsis. Something that is still being shaped is to the extent of our logic as being more "academic", or "scholarly" or even "creative nonfiction". Above all we must present the truth and what the text of the Bible says, careful not to insert our own ideas. Could you elaborate what the purpose of your comment is (for example "Penguins living in Iraq"- there is absoloutely no biblical implication of this). I do hope I am misunderstanding your intention, which I am interpreting as you saying this wiki isn't logical nor is the Bible (but the wiki is needed?)- as you do claim to be a believer in Christ and you have made some good work to this ministry.
In Christ,
Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat