As I know, Wikipedia is very liberal. Let’s see what does it say about cherubim. It seems to say that they are related to those Babylonian bull sphinxes. While I understand that according to the Bible, the Jews are related to other near-East ethnics, I consider relating an angel to a mythological creature is blasphemy. Please refute the stance of WP.
Wiki pedia ROFL
Wikipedia is not “liberal”. If an article is factually wrong, then fix it. If the bizarre claim you are describing is not sourced, then remove it.
What"s wrong with pointing out language similarities?
Why is it blasphemy? Why does this need refutation?
Ancient Near Eastern cultures clearly had a penchant for winged animal/human figures as guardians for sacred places. I see nothing blasphemous about this at all. (Besides, who’s to say that that isn’t, in some sense, what certain angelic beings “look like”? Possibly the ones the Babylonians knew were demonic, but they might have the same general appearance as the good ones. Not saying this is true, and aware that it contradicts St. Thomas’ angelology, but throwing it out there as an alternative non-blasphemous interpretation of the resemblance.)
I appreciate that wikipedia goes off of the deep end on occassion, but with your attitude, you would not survive a College course in Anthropology or History—even in a Catholic University.
Another trouble: it claims that circumcission was practiced in Egypt (related to Jews), even if circumcission wasn’t required in Noehide Law. Is this circumcission related to the Jews’ one?
Circumcision was definitely practiced by Egyptians and a number of other cultures in the area.
Wikipedia is written by all of us, so it’s as liberal as we are.
If you know something is wrong in a Wikipedia article, click the EDIT button and change it.
Also note that there are references to the sources in that article, so if you have a problem go to the source, in this case De Vaux, Roland (tr. John McHugh), Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (NY, McGraw-Hill, 1961)
I would say that there is a clear majority of liberal thinkers on Wikipedia because the oligarchy of established editors, who are comfortable contributing material on a volunteer basis, and comfortable navigating the daunting bureaucracy of policies and guidelines, are typically those with a hacker ethic with the motto of “Information wants to be free.” This is very sad to me. As a former liberal and now a rather strait-laced conservative I still feel that volunteerism and permissive licensing such as the Creative Commons model used by Wikipedia is vital to an open and free society. I feel that more conservatives should be introduced to this ethic and get comfortable with Wikipedia so that all viewpoints are adequately represented there.
Wikipedia is founded on the principle of a Neutral Point of View, which means that the articles do not “take sides” in matters of faith or opinion, and in matters of scholarship it must be ensured that all valid viewpoints are represented with due weight. However, the implementation of this policy is only effective when editors are capable of proposing and defending the viewpoints they value. So religious articles tend to accumulate a secularist-atheist skew when people of faith gradually become discouraged from editing and leave the project. It is essential for more people of faith to come in and begin contributing to the project in order to replace those who were discouraged (or worse, blocked for transgressions of the policies and guidelines.) It is tragic, but I have seen quite a number of great editors leave in a huff, and an appreciable number of well-meaning editors run afoul of the many policies that attempt to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.
So Wikipedia is what you make it. It is “The Free Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit.” Don’t complain on forums about how awful it is if you’re not there in the trenches improving it. Don’t think that your contribution is too trivial to make a difference. Be ready to stand up to some pompous people who attempt to belittle your viewpoint and trip you up when you break a rule. But editing Wikipedia is a job too great for a few. It should be a burden shared by many.
Is there any evidence that Bethlehem was occupied by Canaanites? I know that Israel was inhabited by Jews for a while, but did other nations inhabit the abandoned cities of the Jews?
This page says that the name Bethlehem actually comes from the name of a fertility god.
Scholars can be stupid at times.