User talk:Pastorfish

March 2023

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Isaiah 53, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While you have made two reverts while logged in, you made more while not logged in, and you were warned. Please refer to WP:BRD and in the future, use the talk page to gain consensus for what you want to change. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, I did. And I made it very clear that I was not trying to hide that fact. I did not know how to respond any other way and I was not the one reverting without providing any reason.

My edits were not biased, did not state an opinion and did not make any non-verifiable claims. In fact, they stated a fact, and clarified that the belief in a late date for the book of Isaiah is not a fact, but an opinion held by a particular set of scholars who approach the bible with certain presuppositions.

Nothing in my edit stated that Isaiah was written by one man, it simply stated that some (not all) scholars refer to chapters 44-50 in a certain way and that those same scholars hold to a late date.

The person that reverted it has a very condescending and patronizing attitude to anyone who does not agree with his perspective. I thought the point was to present all major viewpoints neutrally. It is completely unreasonable to call thousands of conservative, biblical scholars, who possess the same credentials from the same universities as those they disagree with, but hold a different viewpoint "fringe" or insult their views as "pseudohistory." Obviously you are higher up the ladder here, so feel free to do what you wish. Pastorfish (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I only made one revert while logged in. Pastorfish (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some data whereupon all mainstream Bible scholars toe the same line. They choose for the historical method over fideism. Don't get me wrong: it is okay to choose for fideism if you're doing theology, but that is wrong if you're doing history. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But an encyclopedia such as this is not merely dedicated to history, it is dedicated to representing major viewpoints on particular topics. One of, if not THE major viewpoint on the book of Isaiah, which has been held by billions (and not just ignorant, uninformed) of Jews and Christians for two millennia, is that it was all written by one author. It is only MODERN historians and scholars who deny this, and therefore THEY are not the mainstream of history, but the anomaly. The proper way of dating a book is to set aside all a priori assumptions and presupositions and use both internal and external evidence to provide the best possible dating. The a priori assumption that predictive prophecy is impossible and therefore evidence of later writing is at best several hundred years old.

Have a nice day. Pastorfish (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THEY are not the mainstream of history—actually there is a difference between "the past", metaphysically considered, and history as an academic field. We don't know "the past" from the Antiquity, we only know the historical (i.e. academic) reconstructions of the events from the Antiquity. See https://ehrmanblog.org/history-past-members/

Organized skepticism was an oddity till two or three centuries ago. But it got to define the academic mainstream. So, you cannot bet that something would be WP:FRINGE just because it was rather recently introduced on the historical timescale.

Science and history were customarily judged by the court of theology. Nowadays, theology is judged by the court of science and history (as an academic field). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Isaiah 53 clearly shows that you attempted to make the same edit four times while not logged in. Please also be aware that an administrator isn't going to get involved in a content dispute, so trying to explain your reasoning to me, while appreciated, is not relevant. An administrator's job is to preserve the stability of the Wikipedia project, and edit-warring disrupts that stability, so we act accordingly. In this case, multiple experienced Wikipedia editors were reverting your changes and attempting to communicate with you. My only recourse to preserve stability was to block your account temporarily. It had nothing to do with content and everything to do with behavior.

When the block lifts, go to Talk:Isaiah 53 and start a discussion about the change you want to make, and provide citations to reliable sources that support the change you want to make. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel great pity for Bart Ehrman. It appears that the kind of fundamentalism in which the Christian believer turned biblical debunker was raised did not prepare him for the challenges he would face in college. He was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years.
— Louis Markos, Erhman Errant

You should not forget, though, that Wikipedia isn't a child of Judaeo-Christianity, but a child of the 250 years old verification system. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]