Are simple, easily digestible yes-or-no articles and definition/exposition articles a more powerful tool than discussion articles?

The wiki section of this site has slowly changed focus. Although I would still like to, and will still (over time) essentially index the Q&A from channels like Tenak Talk for easy reference, the focus has shifted more towards fleshing out the sermon notes of the NSV. I think I wrote about this earlier. Articles on the wiki are nice but putting comments in sermon notes and commentary is also worthwhile.

This led to a sort of problem where some notes are in the NSV and some are on the wiki. Therefore a shift in the wiki has occurred. I find myself writing fewer general purpose articles and more articles like “Davidic Covenant”, or “The New Covenant” (or “Jeremiah’s New Covenant”) which flesh out and define what a term means using scripture alone.

The reason for this is because it is increasingly clear that the Christian misunderstanding is not really able to be countered by pointing out the errors in their scripture — the rabbithole goes far deeper than that. Christians pile up doctrine after doctrine, and fall into this kind of bloviation whereby they essentially reiterate unrelated Christian theology to dogpile an argument and obscure the original issue. A recent discussion went something like this:

N: So I have an issue with Paul’s interpretation of Psalm 14

C: Paul isn’t saying no one has righteousness(!!) he is saying people don’t have perfect righteousness(!!) and that therefore they need the blood of Jesus(!!) who died on the cross (etc).

N: That’s a different issue. But, isn’t righteousness of any kind sufficient?

C: No, because we have a stain in the form of original sin(!!).

N: Original sin can’t be the issue (Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 18:22, Genesis 8:21) I think Paul meant in Romans 3:20 that the knowledge of sin brings death which is a separate issue.

C: No man can go to the father except through Jesus(!!) etc.

N: Well, in Deutronomy 18 and 13 it says you have to test people who bring a message from God. The (!!) isn’t from scripture, so how do I know I can trust what you are saying?

C: The New Testament is Scripture.

N: Ok I mean I can write a book of Appledog, and why should anyone believe me? For example it says we have to test the messages we receive (Deu 13, 18, etc) As a lead-in, Can you give me a miracle now so that I know your message is correct?  (I expected a no, so we could then discuss the original idea that I had a problem with an erronous message in the greek testament, but he replied as follows)

C: Yes, the shroud of Turin is a miracle I can give you to prove what I am saying is correct.

 

The issue here is that despite quoting scripture after scripture, the Christian cannot contend and falls back on their personal interpretation of the New Testament. Also, the christian does not really understand the central issue nor the central meaning of terms in the bible. Therefore longer articles that discuss meta issues such as errors in theology don’t go over well with christians. This is my observation after many years.

I have therefore decided that shorter, definition-style articles which are filled with scripture and less with commentary and explanation will serve to educate the christian better. An article such as “The Davidic Covenant” can then safely present an exhaustive list of verses so that a topic can be completely understood. It will also make for a great search base — one can type a verse and have it pop up.

I think I may need to write a special verse tagging and search feature tho. So that verses will find ranges (i.e. a straight text match might not be sufficient).

Also, I am getting close to finishing various personal projects and will fix the “bible” section soon. For now, just look at NSV phase 3 on the Wiki.