User talk:3Gchromed

October 2022

Hello, I'm Blue Edits. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Codex Vaticanus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Blue Edits (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Codex Sinaiticus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Blue Edits (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, he did, actually! But one from the 1890s. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I did site the CREDIBLE source in the addition! 3Gchromed (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a 19th-century book, making rather unreasonable demands under the circumstances. It does not seem to reflect modern scholarship, which all seems to accept the broad dates for the manuscripts, and was WP:UNDUE, especially placed in the lead (for both MS). Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I see by the way that Robert Lewis Dabney (born 1820) was in no way an expert on Biblical textual studies. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That is your opinion on the matter. It is a referenced point from a respected and published historian! You deleting it makes you a propagandist, not a factual discusser.

The truth doesn't mind being questioned... a lie does 3Gchromed (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And who are you as an "expert on Biblical textual studies" any more than Mr. Dabney? 3Gchromed (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not, at all, but the modern sources cited in the articles are. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And so is Mr. Dabney 3Gchromed (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

He "isn't" anything, as he died in 1898. And he wasn't a specialist scholar in this. Watch out for WP:3RR, which you are now in breach of. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because he died does not make his PUBLISHED remarks on this topic any less importan. The Apostle Paul's remarks are not any less important since he died in the first century, do they?

You stated you are not an expert in textual criticism yet you get to decide who is? That is a vain and arrogant arguement 3Gchromed (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please review great wrongs--VViking_TalkEdits 17:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I did nothing to start this. The edit I added is a published and referenced well accepted dissenting viewpoint from the one in this article. I did not attempt to make it anything more. It is relevant to the topic and should be included as to let the reader decide. It is not my opinion, but a clearly reasoned position about the time period this document is asserted be from. If we allow one person, who clearly has an agenda to decide what is fact in this case, Wiki ceases to be information and becomes propaganda. 3Gchromed (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And, as for Johnbod statement he "wasn't a specialist", that is opinion as other greats of the faith believe otherwise...

'R.L. Dabney was the most conspicuous figure and the leading theological guide of the Southern Presbyterian Church, the most prolific theological writer that Church has as yet produced, and for a period of over forty years one of the most distinguished and probably the most impressive teacher of its candidates for the ministry. As a preacher, as a teacher and as a writer equally he achieved greatness, and in the counsels of the State and of the Church alike he was a factor of importance. In the wider theological history of the country and of the epoch he finds a worthy place as one of the younger members of a remarkable company of theologians to whose lot it fell to reassert and reorganize the historical faith of the Reformed Churches in the face of the theological ferment which marked the earlier years of the Nineteenth Century.’ — B.B. WARFIELD 3Gchromed (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Right! Even this friendly and century-old (died 1921) source makes no mention of Dabney's expertise in Textual criticism of the New Testament, the relevant specialism here. So, no, he wasn't a specialist. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet you, never having been published, and without recognition from ANYONE recognized as a hero of the faith, believe your opinion is superior to a great leader in the faith who is praised and supported by other great leaders in the faith

You are ignorant and arrogant. You don't own Wikipedia and you've proven you only care to allow what your uneducated beliefs are to exist on this page. Your lack o base in your arguments has proven you a fool. The truth will prevail, no matter how you try to hide it.

Once again, truth doesn't mind being questioned, lies do. Truth doesn't have anything to hide. Truth doesn't need to be defended, it is in itself its own defense. Lies need protected from dissenting opinions because they expose the darkness in them. You are an agent of lies and darkness trying to hide the weakness in your position by hiding any dissenting opinion.

Truth always prevails because truth is of God, not man. 3Gchromed (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)