User talk:T2mike2

no reason for removal of tetragrammaton given. Hence change was undone.

No reason for adding it given, either. The reason I took it out is several-fold. In the first place, it adds nothing. What, are you going to go through the whole of Wikipedia and make that same addition every place where "God" is mentioned? In the second place, the Tetragrammaton is only one name used for God in the various passages, and the English "God" covers them all. Putting in an effective equation of God = Tetragrammaton could imply that God != Elohim, which would be false. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not following your reasoning on this. How does Tertagrammaton = Elohim? Tertragrammaton identifies the particular god. The specification differentiates YHWH (tetra..) from well, every other God, or elohim. I agree that it would be nearly impossible for me to specify in every wiki page. And the need for consistency arises.

God is called by more than one name in the Bible. The Tetragrammaton is one. Elohim is another. They are not two different deities, but two names for one deity. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind citing these other text for me please? a few atleast. I am not asking this out of sarcasm, but out of genuine interest. i will go ahead and put quotes around "god" to attract your attention, as i am unaware of any other way to. Please don't take offense to this.~t2mike2~

The quotes were inappropriate. There's nothing wrong with what's written there. What exactly do you think you're "fixing"? -LisaLiel (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes were only placed there so that you would notice a change and look at this page, and thus answer my question. I am not "fixing" anything. It appears you cannot, or choose not to answer it.

Don't take this the wrong way, Mike, but I couldn't even parse it. "Would you mind citing these other text for me" doesn't make any sense. Aside from the poor English, I don't have any idea what "other text" you're talking about. There's no context.

Beyond that, modifying articles to catch someone's attention is called "vandalism". I have a talk page. You can post there if you have a question for me. You obviously know that when someone posts on your talk page, you automatically see a note saying that there's a note for you the next time you go into Wikipedia, because you've gotten such an alert every single time I've posted here.

Because I'm aware that for some odd reason, you choose not to post to my talk page, I had to actually add your talk page to my watch list. Among other things, it means that whenever anyone, including you, posts to your talk page, I'll see it on my watchlist. It's dumb, but since you don't want to do things the normal Wikipedia way, it's apparently necessary.

Lastly, let me rephrase my question to you. What do you think you were fixing by adding the Tetragrammaton to those articles? What was missing from the articles that you felt adding that name would correct? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please add your signature to your comments with four tildes (~~~~). That will automatically be parsed by the Wikipedia code into your username and a date/time stamp. It's considered courteous to do that, and it really isn't difficult. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]