Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical scientific foreknowledge

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical scientific foreknowledge

I think this is original research, it certainly hasn't got anything to do with science, and the few external links given are vaguely on topic but given the amount of server space used for religion on the Internet, I don't think are particularly notable. Perhaps someone more knowlegable about theology (which I can't get my head round at all) can correct me. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and move to under Fundamentalism. POV and claims notwithstanding, this topic is not at this point worthy of an entire article, and seems unlikely to become so. Put in a redirect and move. I agree its crap, its silly nonsense, but it is believed by Fundamentalists and used by Fundamentalistic Apologists to bolster their beliefs and position. Outside of Fundamental Apologetics, however, it has no adherents - hence is a sub-topic of same. --216.53.182.148 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (was not logged in - sorry - this is --KillerChihuahua 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) )
• Delete it seems another nutty joke theory. drini ☎ 17:32, 27 July 2005

• Keep Whether one agrees with it or not, it is an argument made by some Christian apologists. Similar claims are made by Muslims about the Qur'an. --Flex 17:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — the article is fairly neutral as it does not assert that these claims are true. I have read in books such claims going back to the 19th century, so it has some slight historical value. But I would like to see this closely linked into a more general article on the supposed links between scientific knowledge and religious dogma. :) — RJH 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It needs work, but it's a valid topic, and a prevelant belief among fundamentalist creationist christians. Lots of references on the internet: [1] MickWest 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 24 at 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fairly neutral article JoJan 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wiki doesn't have to be the home for everything bible, ad this certianly seems like gibberish--172.152.1.161 18:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly neutral, and a valid topic. --Idont Havaname 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've stumbled across the article when it was very fresh, and was apalled by unencyclopedic style (look in the history), but this can be cured. It's an argument of enough public visibility so that it cannot be ignored. Unfortunately these articles attract contributions which are against our WP:NOR policy, but this can also potentially be kept under control. --Pjacobi 18:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. It's poorly written and wikified atm. Mmmbeer 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs clean up. Phoenix prima
• Keep,clean up, and move under Fundamentalism. If anyone has an issue with its POV, they can update it and provide additional arguments. Unknown
• Bullshit. Keep, though, as believed bullshit. humblefool® 00:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• From original research:
  • The following are examples of allowable claims, research, and views (as long as they are verifiable and sources are cited):
  1. listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
  2. listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
  3. including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories);
  4. citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).
  • This appears to fit squarely within those bounds. --Unknown 16:14, 27 July 2005 (PDT)
• Keep. This is grasping at straws, clearly, but it's cited. Gazpacho 01:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. The title Biblical scientific foreknowledge implies an endorsement that such foreknowledge exists. It should be called something like Claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, or better yet, Modern Science and the Bible, which could also discuss the instances were the Bible contradicts modern science. COGDEN 23:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and rename. Style is mediocre, there are not enough citations listed in the article which makes it look like original research, and the name should be changed to Claims of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge or something similar. Overall, it's almost NPOV, but lacks citations and needs more counter-arguments for the various points. Xaa 00:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to agree with the first poster, this should be moved under Fundamentalism. Franc28 03:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Bollar 14:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it definitly needs a cleanup and a rename along the lines COGDEN proposed. A article about contradictions between the Bible and science would also be acceptable, though I'd recommend making it a separate article, if only because having both on one page would make a very long article. -- Ritchy 29 July 2005
• This looks like unverifiable original research, unless there's a better name for this. Google on biblical scientific foreknowledge, 22,000+ hits. Put quotes around it, 5 hits, the first two of which are Wikipedia. Strong Delete unless more verifible name is given for this concept. Friday 05:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. I really can't see the bible's mentions of the water cycle as notable, any more than the bible mentioning that people have sex - i.e. Biblical proof that ancient Israel knew that people have sex ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only if rewritten and renamed. IT needs to be copy-edited and it needs some more citations, especially from some more neutral sources. It also needs to be NPOV'd, and should cover some of the text of the Bible that most scientists think are in error, for example. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's being very kind to call this original research. William Avery 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Robert McClenon 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is NOT original research, because by definition it must be, "...any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'..." Since other fundamentalists hold this position, it is not a "new/novel interpretation". It is obviously not encyclopedic, however, as it cherrypicks material which supports a contention (persuasive), both within the Bible and within the scientific literature. This particular user, as it has been shown, has ignored the substantial proof that the OT was compiled at a much later date than he purports, and that it relied heavily upon well-established practices throughout antiquity, such as burying waste and avoiding blood. Not encyclopedia material, this would spread ignorance and confusion rather than enlighten. Only way to preserve this page is to present theories of the origin of information in the OT, and compare to synchronous information in the ancient near east, which would make this a huge page...untenable--skiddum12:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've been trying to clean it up and incorporate some context. I think this can be done in a reasonable compact way by simply referencing other articles. See the paragraph I added Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Historical_Context. Work still remains to be done to reach the higher standard and NPOV, but I still feel it's a valid pseudoscience topic.MickWest 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless, POV, unencyclopedic, and irredeemably so. Probably original research, too; plus the article title is a neologism (fully 24 Google hits). Rd232 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Research, but not original research. Interesting subject. --Vizcarra 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

re: alleged neologism: doing a internet search on Bible and "scientific foreknowledge" yields 879 hits. I cite: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Bible%22+and++%22scientific+foreknowledge%22&btnG=Search

Therefore, it is not a neologism

128.205.191.60 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

re: re: alleged neologism: volume of usage of a neologism does not preclude its being such. you must prove that, according to Wikipedia's definition, as a neologism, "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" is not, " word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. Neologisms are by definition "new," and as such are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period or event. The term "neologism" was itself coined around 1800. It can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." I think this title definitively falls into "reshape older terms in newer language form..."; specifically, you have repeated a neologism created by, "...They are often created by combining existing words (see compound noun and adjective) or by giving words new and unique suffixes or prefixes. Those which are portmanteaus are shortened. Neologisms can also be created through abbreviation or acronym, by intentionally rhyming with existing words, or simply through playing with sounds." (from neologism)--skiddum 12:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. Eclipsed 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] author's comment, dated 8/1/05

I did a search through PubMed and other sources and found some additional material. Unfortunately I have only time to put it in the Pro Bible scientific foreknowledge link section. Also, there appears to be a article which was written in medical journal in another language which I wish to have translated via friends. I also found other material which I did not want to put in the link section until I did more fact checking. Please be sure to examine the link section.

Also, if anyone speaks Italian I would appreciate any input gained from this article:

G Batteriol Virol Immunol. 1960 Mar-Apr;53:197-204. Related Articles, Links

[The "Leviticus", first codex of medical legislation.]'

[Article in Italian]

CORDIGLIA GJ.

[edit] additional comment by someone else

• Please pardon me while I roll my eyes. — RJH 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.