Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-5590118-20160118105355/@comment-5175866-20160118214437

While I don't have the knowledge to address the lingustic "differences" that is often suggested by non-Christian and liberal scholars, I can address more into why we do not cover it.

Firstly, with our Biblical Point of View, we do not cover the time period outside of the Bible's history. On this wiki we do not document canonization or translation of the Bible, nor we document any modern theories. We document up to the very last second of the Bible's timeline

Second, and most importantly, we do not question the authority or accuracy of the Bible. We take the accuracy and reliability of the Bible as a given. Further we hope that the extentensive historical accuracy and cross-consitency of the Bible can be indirectly demonstrated here. Covering all the theories and arguments of the Bible would document the possibility that the Bible was untruthful.

There are certain topics of the Bible that cannot be questioned (we affirm those on our Beliefs page), as they have very clear biblical clarification of the correctness of those doctrines. A doctrine that is not supported by the Bible is simply false. As Christians we cannot document Christianity as having "various forms" or different options.

We would like to pose an alternative to Wikipedia that covers ALL perspectives. According to the Bible, we cannot be "neutral" in our faith, we are eitheir for God or against Him. I encourage you to read our About page and our Biblical Point of View page to read further.