Talk:Melchizedek
From Academic Kids
Major revision of article. I added a detailed historical section. 217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)Eypper217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How to NPOV?
- "Whether he actually existed as a person or as an abstraction remains a mystery."
At the moment, this sentence is POV (e.g. Bible literalists will not consider it a mystery). — Matt 18:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think you need to look up what NPOV means. (anon)
- Why? — Matt Crypto 12:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think you need to look up what NPOV means. (anon)
Historical Melchizedik
What is this section? It seems to be solely one man's (completly surmised) account of an occurance, which could have many historical explanations. It ought to be a paragraph long at the most and suplemented by other historian's views. Or at the very least this stuff should be explained: What evidence is there that Melchizedek refers to an 'El-elyon' rather than Yahweh (Who is also refered to as El throughout the bible, anyway). Why would an 'outside source' be inserted into the bible? Why? Why? I think this article is in severe need of cleanup.
- It is an essay presenting someone's personal opinion. Actually to me it feels like a copyvio - can someone look in the Anchor Bible to see how much of this text is here? Whatever the result of that check, this section is unacceptable. I propose wholesale deletion. --Zero 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To NPOV:
I removed this from the article for now:
- As a commentary on Psalm 110, Hebrews is important in New Testament theology, but, written over a thousand years after the Melchizedek episode, it has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion."
POV, really: Hebrews has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion unless (for example) you believe Hebrews to be the inspired word of God. Is there a point here that's worth salvaging and reinserting in NPOV form? — Matt Crypto 09:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
