Monday, March 05, 2007

Seventh Day Adventist Invade Wikipedia

I came across a fascinating part of Wikipedia while working on an online bible study I lead for our church. Click here here here and here for what I am talking about. The SDA has apparently started a movement in Wikipedia to alter articles in order to reflect their doctrinal teaching. The other part of the project is to inject as many articles as they can about Adventist specifics. I am fascinated by this, and amazed quite frankly about the possibilities this offers.

Could someone potentially rewrite history online to reflect only a certain denominational viewpoint?

What about disagreement within that particular denomination?

Could someone alter this page and claim it reflects the true meaning behind the BF&M? (notice that in reading the article there has already been some revision)

Aren't we already having this discussion?


Anonymous Rhonda Martin said...

"Could someone potentially rewrite history..."

This is pretty rich coming from two Southern Baptist pastor-bloggers.

The history has been being rewritten since 1979. Pope Adrian and Cardinals Pressler and Patterson (and their bless-ed ones) are the only Scribes that get to contribute to the 'new' history, isn't that right?


Do all blogs go through Memphis before publication/uploading? LOL

You guys take good care,


Blogger Professor X said...


Nice to see you here as well. It might help you to know that I have not personally signed the Memphis Declaration. True, since 1979 much history and doctrine has been controlled by a select few. The priority of the Memphis signers, in my understanding, is to recognize their own personal arrogance in their attempts to "rewrite history" and to renew their efforts to proclaim "Christ and Him crucified."
Before scoffing at an assumed connection or preponderence of bias please ensure you know me and what I believe. Also, based on much of your writings on other blogs I would be safe to say that you believe in redaction criticism of litery genres. Is this not a flagrant attempt to rewrite history according to personal bias?


Anonymous selahV said...

hello, this wikipedia thing just goes to prove we can only trust our Bibles. I have a hard time trusting the interpretations of commentaries in light of all the division among Baptists today. but I know I can trust God.

Blogger Professor X said...


There are multiple projects occuring at wikipedia. Here is another link:

If you scroll down to the bottom you will find even more links. The difficulty with trusting only the Bible is that, while the Holy Spirit speaks through it to point us to the full and final revelation of God in Christ, what are we to do when the Bible is not "plain as day" in its offerings on a particular topic? A good example would be the current debates on the use of alcohol and PPL.

Anonymous PreachRwife said...

I wrote a few days ago and haven't seen the comments so I'm not sure you got them. I'm new at this!

I would like to direct a comment to your statement "The difficulty with trusting only the Bible is that...etc"

I believe we MUST trust only the Bible as it corresponds with what the Holy Spirit teaches us day by day. I would suggest that you get a copy of the book "The Pursuit of Holiness" by Jerry Bridges. Chapter 9 deals with this issue; see page 91-94, "Formula: How to Know Right from Wrong." I won't plagarize and write it here (I know that is wrong!)but I think anyone would benefit from reading this chapter which is founded in the Scriptures. Actually, you will get a blessing out of the entire book.

I may have misinterpreted your comments; if so, please forgive me. I just think it is dangerous and misleading to imply that the Bible is not wholly sufficient to help us make godly and holy decisions in this or any age.

I appreciate your willingness to address such topics. God bless you! :)


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home