![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is grossly biased and downright mean-spirited currently. It appears Fides_Viva is responsible. I see grammatical errors, thinly-veiled missives, and a completely unbalanced links section wherein only critiques are represented. -- T3rmin 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Fides Viva, I would refer you to Five_pillars and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The history shows neutrality in this article until your edits. The record will also show I've been more than fair in restoring neutrality while maintaining your points. Let's give the reader a chance to draw their own conclusions, shall we? Whether you or I agree with Dave Hunt (and I haven't said I do!) and whether the external links present truthful information or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a repository for information, not opinions. -- T3rmin 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
"According to Calvinists, the book is inaccurate and misrepresents Calvinism." We all agree to that. This is what Calvinists say regarding the book. It neither supports or denies the validity of said claim. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Hunt asserts he is rather addressing the true nature and logical ends of Calvinism." This is Dave's basic response to the above claim. This statement is true, he DOES make this assertion. This statement does not support any idea other than the fact that this is DH's claim. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"He also makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, whom Calvinists claim is misrepresented through selective quoting." DH does quote Calvinists directly. Calvinists do claim he quotes them selectively. Both true statements. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Hunt makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, but quotes them in ways that have been considered selective and misleading." The implication here is twofold, that he DOES quote in these "ways", AND that the normative position is/has been that these "ways" ARE "selective and misleading". Both of these ideas are opinions. Attributing these opinions and presenting them as such, as in my version (above), eliminates this bias. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm being more than fair for not saying "ways that are selective and misleading". It's not just Calvinists who consider it that way, it's any honest person who compares Hunt's quote to the unedited paragraphs. A.J.A. 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I refuse to use this article as a forum for expressing my viewpoint, although the temptation is great with everyone else doing it...
You assume, in this Spurgeon thing, that:
None of these things you can prove. But that is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is we both have opinions, but what needs to be presented here is either both or neither so the reader may draw his own conclusions. -- T3rmin 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you've taken it upon yourself to intersperce your indulgences into my comment. I'll gather them here for reply.
You have an odd notion of "logic".
This, from the person who thinks "have been considered" is biased! At least "have been considered" implies a considerer who or may not be considering rightly. You just drop your "however, (refutation)" without even most tenuous of attributions. It was presented as if setting the matter. And you say it has to be read into it. Incredible! I guess you get a different standard from everyone else, eh?
Yes, and I'll also take credit for that. A.J.A. 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________
I added some specifics about WLIT's publishing status, and a sentence about the particulars of Calvinist complaints against Hunt (that his knowledge of Reformed theology is skimpy, and that his lack of knowledge about N.T. Greek results in him not being able to respond to Reformed exegesis of N.T. passages). I also added that he was one of the few Christian Fundamentalist authors to warn against Y2K hysteria, and refute various wild claims being made by others.
Jack Brooks 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to have a pro/con section listing various external websites? Most of these entries are of people attacking a various published material - it would likely be more relevant, at least in my opinion, to have these entries made, if absolutely necessary, on the pages about each reference material instead of on this bio page. To a person just visiting the article, it appears very biased, with an empty pro section, and many cons listed... Tharaun ( talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Hunt (Christian apologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/about-dave-hunt-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on his criticism we can be fairly safe concluding he wasn't Catholic, Mormon, nor Calvinist, but that he was a Christian. What denomination? It says he was a preacher - for what Church/Religion? 2601:14A:503:64C0:B0EE:D753:2340:DF22 ( talk) [formerly known as ileanadu]
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is grossly biased and downright mean-spirited currently. It appears Fides_Viva is responsible. I see grammatical errors, thinly-veiled missives, and a completely unbalanced links section wherein only critiques are represented. -- T3rmin 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Fides Viva, I would refer you to Five_pillars and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The history shows neutrality in this article until your edits. The record will also show I've been more than fair in restoring neutrality while maintaining your points. Let's give the reader a chance to draw their own conclusions, shall we? Whether you or I agree with Dave Hunt (and I haven't said I do!) and whether the external links present truthful information or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a repository for information, not opinions. -- T3rmin 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
"According to Calvinists, the book is inaccurate and misrepresents Calvinism." We all agree to that. This is what Calvinists say regarding the book. It neither supports or denies the validity of said claim. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Hunt asserts he is rather addressing the true nature and logical ends of Calvinism." This is Dave's basic response to the above claim. This statement is true, he DOES make this assertion. This statement does not support any idea other than the fact that this is DH's claim. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"He also makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, whom Calvinists claim is misrepresented through selective quoting." DH does quote Calvinists directly. Calvinists do claim he quotes them selectively. Both true statements. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Hunt makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, but quotes them in ways that have been considered selective and misleading." The implication here is twofold, that he DOES quote in these "ways", AND that the normative position is/has been that these "ways" ARE "selective and misleading". Both of these ideas are opinions. Attributing these opinions and presenting them as such, as in my version (above), eliminates this bias. -- T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm being more than fair for not saying "ways that are selective and misleading". It's not just Calvinists who consider it that way, it's any honest person who compares Hunt's quote to the unedited paragraphs. A.J.A. 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I refuse to use this article as a forum for expressing my viewpoint, although the temptation is great with everyone else doing it...
You assume, in this Spurgeon thing, that:
None of these things you can prove. But that is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is we both have opinions, but what needs to be presented here is either both or neither so the reader may draw his own conclusions. -- T3rmin 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you've taken it upon yourself to intersperce your indulgences into my comment. I'll gather them here for reply.
You have an odd notion of "logic".
This, from the person who thinks "have been considered" is biased! At least "have been considered" implies a considerer who or may not be considering rightly. You just drop your "however, (refutation)" without even most tenuous of attributions. It was presented as if setting the matter. And you say it has to be read into it. Incredible! I guess you get a different standard from everyone else, eh?
Yes, and I'll also take credit for that. A.J.A. 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________
I added some specifics about WLIT's publishing status, and a sentence about the particulars of Calvinist complaints against Hunt (that his knowledge of Reformed theology is skimpy, and that his lack of knowledge about N.T. Greek results in him not being able to respond to Reformed exegesis of N.T. passages). I also added that he was one of the few Christian Fundamentalist authors to warn against Y2K hysteria, and refute various wild claims being made by others.
Jack Brooks 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to have a pro/con section listing various external websites? Most of these entries are of people attacking a various published material - it would likely be more relevant, at least in my opinion, to have these entries made, if absolutely necessary, on the pages about each reference material instead of on this bio page. To a person just visiting the article, it appears very biased, with an empty pro section, and many cons listed... Tharaun ( talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Hunt (Christian apologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/about-dave-hunt-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on his criticism we can be fairly safe concluding he wasn't Catholic, Mormon, nor Calvinist, but that he was a Christian. What denomination? It says he was a preacher - for what Church/Religion? 2601:14A:503:64C0:B0EE:D753:2340:DF22 ( talk) [formerly known as ileanadu]