User talk:Rossnixon/Archive 1

Like your stuff

Hey, just saying I noticed you. ;p Think I liked most on your userpage about leaving stuff at the last minute! Anyway, I'm also a NZer. With it seems something of an overlap in your on interests, while holding similar views. So I'll keeping quarter of an eye out... Mathmo 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, hadn't noticed that about your link. Goes to another user. Well you put it there! So I guess it will get noticed?? Mathmo

Please get an admin to block Birdmessenger

for the blatant POV attempts in the [List of Anthropologists] sectionSpicynugget 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly support

Would that be your own possible definition of scholarly support?--Tomtom9041 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ross, I have some citations for you regarding notable Plymouth Brethren members, please see that discussion page. Can the names go in the article now?Malick78 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bible translations

Truthfully, most translations do not follow the original biblical text closely. This can be seen by taking a biblical passage word by word and seeing how each word is used through the rest of the original language in the bible. Even not going this far, compare three versions of the bible, then reconsider the statement "most translations follow . . . closely." The three versions will be largely different, showing that "most" cannot possibly "follow closely" -- pure statistical analysis, not my biased opinion. Each translatioin is a cultural interpretation to meet the needs of the community putting that translaion to use.

Further, even if the translations are "fairly close" or even "substantially close," one cannot make factual presumptions about the bible's intent through reading a translation. This is true for all literature. While, you are correct -- irony is not encyclopaedic material -- the irony here is indisputable. Biblical literalists believe the bible is the divine and perfect word of god, but instead of reading god's version (in all its perfection) they read a version translated and rewritten by fallible human beings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.97.202 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Rudolf Steiner's explanation of discrepancies

You have stated that "Rudolf (Steiner) is not really qualified in this area" regarding the discrepancies in the genealogies of Jesus. What do you mean when you say he is not qualified? What are the criteria for qualification? It is a fact that he gave explanation for this. Whether it is correct or not should be irrelevant for Wikipedia I thought.

Thank you for an answer.

Wynton Rufer Page

Why are you insistent on undoing my original research everytime, what I say in it is the opinion of a friend of mine who heard Dunga say that while attending the course (something which he did for over 5 years). Since you have been unable to provide me with an answer, I am taking the liberty of once again undoing your contribution and would ask you to please let the page remain this way.

LDS perspective on Noah

seems my view was validated, does it not, rossnixon? Ledenierhomme 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth Brethren - Notable Members

Added a better reference to Jim Elliot as I think your needing some moral support. Also added Dr. Bernardo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello! This is my first contact with a real person in Wiki. Is this not amazing? I am in wonderment, what an incredible thing. This online encyclopedia goes to depths that no enc of the past could even dream of going, because it enlists the help of those who are interested in each subject. And you are a individual with very similar beliefs to mine, so, I count you as a friend. God bless you, yruymi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yruymi (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)