 |
| Wikipedia's editors play Judas to the truth. |
 |
| Everyone has biases, but as Wikipedia's editors prove, not everyone can deal with the facts honestly. |
Absurd ad hominems, specious arguments, over-generalizations, diversion, condescension. So much for intellectual integrity at Wikipedia.
A few notes pointing out Wikipedia's fundamental dishonesty from
here:
The fact that the Lutheran Study Bible contains devotional content does not mean that its theological, historical, or textual scholarship is in any way questionable. That's poor logic.
Also, the text notes and essays contained in the LSB are written and/or compiled by professionals with earned Master's degrees and doctorates. Dismissing highly-educated Lutheran theologians and editors because they're Lutheran is fundamentally dishonest.
And the Evangelist made no "erroneous attribution," which is shown clearly by the material that was deleted.
Finally, Augustine and Luther are quoted/noted to imply error; their own words and heirs ought to be able to add to the discussion. That they're not indicates strongly a profound bias.
No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it does.
