Newsflash

[Owlswing]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

[Nearly Sane]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

[BashfulAnthony]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

I have made the point more than once in the past:  if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc  Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.

[Nearly Sane]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

I have made the point more than once in the past:  if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc  Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.

so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?

[Owlswing]

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.

[BashfulAnthony]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

I have made the point more than once in the past:  if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc  Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.

so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?

What was incorrect?

[ad_orientem]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Come on then. Let's see your evidence. Lilith is just rabbinical speculation at best.

[Owlswing]

Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.

The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.

It doesn't?

It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.

You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!

The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

I have made the point more than once in the past:  if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc  Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.

so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?

I didn't - ad orientem did

[Hope]

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Whilst that may be the case, do you actually have any evidence that your story has any truth, Matt?  After all, the OT creation story is a theological treatment of the early history of the earth, not a historical one.

Just to let you know that the midrashic (Jewish folklore) roots of the Lilith story are to be found referenced in a number of other sources other than wikipedia - such as:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html
http://gnosis.org/lilith.htm
http://bit.ly/1HtQHeq (from biblicalarchaeology.org)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
http://www.art.net/~schong/lilithmyth.html

Interestingly, the Biblical Archaeology article traces her roots to Babylonian demonology, from where she migrated to Hittite, Egyptian, Jewish and Greek lore.

[Nearly Sane]

Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.

Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.

No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.

then he's as wrong as you are. You have to be careful citing wiki but it is not an instant fail as you have posted.

[Nearly Sane]

nope, your statement that any citation of wiki is an instant fail at any level of exam and High School is incorrect, no matter what your daughter's prof said.

[Hope]

No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.

Matt, as far as I'm aware, referencing wikipedia is perfectly acceptable even up to further degree level, provided that it isn't the only referenced source for something.

[Owlswing]

Hope and Nearly Sane

Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.

[Nearly Sane]

Hope and Nearly Sane

Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.

That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable  citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.

[Owlswing]

Hope and Nearly Sane

Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.

That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable  citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.

Have it your own way.

[Nearly Sane]

Hope and Nearly Sane

Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.

That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable  citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.

Have it your own way.

Not mine, just how it is. People are not absolutely failed in university or High School for citing wiki.

[BashfulAnthony]

Hope and Nearly Sane

Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.

That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable  citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.

Have it your own way.

Not mine, just how it is. People are not absolutely failed in university or High School for citing wiki.

If you are talking of exams, how do you know why people have failed, if they have failed?

[Nearly Sane]

I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.

[BashfulAnthony]

I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.

And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?

[Nearly Sane]

I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.

And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?

Er because it is a 'citation'. You do understand how citation works?

[floo]

Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?

Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.

You might believe tat to be true, but where is the evidence?

Honestly Floo. I am not surprised at the way in which Christians treat your posts on subjects like this.

When are you going to get off the roundabout of evidence and proof.

Religion in all its forms is a matter of faith!

You have faith that there are no gods; Christians, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus and all the other plethora of religious belief (NOTE - BELIEF) including Pagans believe and have faith to the contrary.

Neither side - I emphasise NEITHER SIDE - yours or ours, can provide evidence or proof of our belief it is a matter of faith and no matter how many times anyone states that it is a fact, again on either side of the divide, to consider it so is a delusion.

My belief is faith - as far as I am concerned it is highly likely that no-one, neither theist or atheist, will ever, in my lifetime or yours, be able to provide proof or evidence.

This constant going round and round in circles of "Prove it/provide evidence - No, you provide proof/evidence" has only one outcome, that of us rotating in ever-decreasing circles at ever-increasing speeds until we disappear up our own fundaments in a shower of orange pips.

And, before the inevitable post from one of our Christian bretheren, their Bible is NOT either proof or evidence.

Christians often state as factual what is quoted in the Bible, when there is usually no evidence to support it. I make no apology for pointing it out over and over again!

[BashfulAnthony]

I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.

And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?

Er because it is a 'citation'. You do understand how citation works?

Er, yes, but I'm suggesting that no source is specified, yet the student is clearly using one.

[Nearly Sane]

If no source is specified, it is not a citation.

[BashfulAnthony]

If no source is specified, it is not a citation.

Then, of course, the comment or argument cannot be properly evaluated, and the student must be assessed accordingly.

[Nearly Sane]

If no source is specified, it is not a citation.

Then, of course, the comment or argument cannot be properly evaluated, and the student must be assessed accordingly.

so no original argument can be properly evaluated.