Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Inconsistencies in the Bible

This article should be deleted for reasons similar to those stated above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible: 1) There already exists Internal consistency and the Bible, so why is this article needed or justified (besides just being another avenue to attack the Bible)? Does every article get to have an "opposite" mirror-image nemesis created? 2) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Internal consistency and the Bible and Criticism of Christianity. 3) It creates confusion with the topic of the Documentary hypothesis which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 4) this topic is just trolling. 5) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Authorship of the Pauline epistles. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Biblical canon; Biblical inerrancy; Names of God in Judaism; Synoptic problem; Textual criticism; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete IZAK 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment previously listed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biblical inconsistencies.Geni 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Biblical inconsistencies article does not exist, it REDIRECTS to: Internal consistency and the Bible, and as is stated very clearly above, i.e. the Internal consistency and the Bible article is not the article we are voting on here! It remains thus far. Rather, the vote is to delete the newer article Inconsistencies in the Bible with its information that is redundant and tendentious. I hope User:Geni was not trying to confuse anyone... IZAK 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page of the article you have listed for deletion Biblical inconsistencies was moved to Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible as mentioned on the VFD page. If we then go to the talk page we find here that the article was then moved to Inconsistencies in the Bible. IT's the same article just a somewhat complex history.Geni 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Geni: Now you are mentioning another REDIRECT. What you say still makes no sense since there is no Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible article because it merely REDIRECTS to Inconsistencies in the Bible (and it's already been made very clear that Biblical inconsistencies REDIRECTS to Internal consistency and the Bible.) This does not change anything because the basic information about all this can be found in the Internal consistency and the Bible article (so why make a comment about something which does not exist...very puzzling don't you think?). To have two articles about the same subject makes no sense whichever way you slice (or redirect) it. IZAK 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I know nothing about this debate, but from the looks of it so far, i'm doubting this afd will result in a clear consensus at this rate. I'd suggest an rfd instead, but that won't really work unless the reforms go into place. Karmafist 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)