Talk:Misquoting Jesus

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I find that the reviews presented here are imbalanced. Is it truly possible that no positive reviews could be found?

Randal Oulton (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Randal, it is actually extremely likely, given Wiki's apologetic policies on Judaism and Christianity. You must fully understand that where faith in God, Yaweh, El, Al, Baal, Adonis, Elohim, Bosephus, ect., ect., ect., is concerned, there simply are no reliable sources for any position that criticizes the 30,000+++ different denominational viewpoints on biblical interpretations of historical fact based entirely on the assimilation of ancient world myths. To even consider the possibility is pure blasphemy and grounds for immediate excommunication for life. Manson 22:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I think there is a tendency for religious articles on Wikipedia to be biased anyway, because believers in those religions have a much more vested interest in the subject than non-believers do. Anyway, I think you're both right because the reviews section of this article seems to me slightly unfairly skewed against the book and it omits some very positive reviews of the book. I may add excerpts from a few of those at some point if I have time, but for now I think I'll just add a POV tag to warn the casual reader that the impression given by this section may be misleading. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is messy - a jumble of 'positive' and 'negative' comments, but it's clearly not just critical. The first post in this thread was written two years ago. I see no reason for the tag. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem ridiculous to me that the views of Daniel B. Wallace on the book's shortcomings are given more room than a summary of the book itself. This article needs to be re-written, for now I am cutting a lot of that out.Smeat75 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misquoting Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425151325/http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/ to http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]