Pwbernha

Recent edits

Hi, I saw your edits at Book of Daniel, wherein you said that evangelicals consider that some historians work with the assumption that there is no supernatural knowledge of the future. I want to say this is an assumption all historians have to work with, whether they like it or not, otherwise they cannot be taken seriously as academics. You may want to read the article methodological naturalism: history is an empirical science and cannot do but work with methodological naturalism. All empirical sciences work with methodological naturalism and history is no exception. If historians believe there is such a thing as a supernatural knowledge of the future, they do so in private, since they are unable to do so as respectable scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your 8/13/2013 edit of The Book of Daniel

Hi there, I noticed with your edit that you left the old paragraph in place that starts with "Though traditionally the book was believed to have been written by the Daniel figure of the court tales" followed by your new paragraph that begins the same way. I'll let you fix since I don't want to get between the "conservatives" and the "recent scholarly view" people. Wolfhound668 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Pwbernha. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.