Talk:Word of Knowledge

Untitled section

Preliminary note—I am new to editing Wikipedia, so excuse me if I don't do this correctly.

Now, onto my problem. This refers to the phrase "Among scientists, most deny the existence of these type of human abilities without ever having applied the scientific method to find evidence for or against these claims." If I'm not mistaken, there has been considerable scientific research into "paranormal" and "psychic" phenomena, all resulting in the conclusion that these types of phenomena do not exist. I personally believe in them, but you can't make a blanket statement such as that just to prove your point and degrade the other person's view. Instead, perhaps you could cite some paranormal studies and what you find wrong with them. Another solution would be to rephrase the sentence into a factual statement.

For this reason, I have flagged this page for biased views. Carter 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree on general knowledge. But the concern seems to be with a specific section, so I'm switching from the {{npov}} flag to the {{npov-section}} flag. GRBerry 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also a serious error in the sentence which ends "(the 80% of the brain that is not used by humans)." This is nothing more than urban myth. It _used_ to be the case that we didn't _understand_ what huge areas of the brain did, but we do now see activity everywhere in the brain, and in many cases we understand the cause-and-effect responses within whole segments of the organ. That's not to say that we understand everything, of course -- far from it -- but the tone of the sentence (with the loaded phrase "dead zone") -- implies something that's simply not true. For an interesting summary of the myth, see http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html. Peter Reid 22:08, 4 April 2006

I've decided that clause isn't important enough to stay in the article, so deleted it. GRBerry 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Total Rewrite Needed

This article is extremely POV, unsourced, and reads like a cheap church pamphlet. Total rewrite needed. I may consider taking that up, we'll see. Soonercary (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to rewrite this article using Donald Gee's Concerning Spiritual Gifts. Ltwin (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have completed my rewrite of this article. It is now fully sourced. A comparison of the version before and after my rewrite can be viewed here. Ltwin (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the "Description" section August 6, 2011

User:Peterl made this edit to the article. I removed the references to David, Samuel, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and the accompanying scripture references. Wikipedia has guidelines on reliable sources. Scriptures are not one of them, especially scriptures as vague as those that do not clearly pertain to the word of knowledge. I have left the account of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in as it clearly can be an argument for the word of knowledge based on the definition already contained in the article, but it needs a source which says that Pentecostals, charismatics, or some other Christian actually considers this verse as an example of a word of knowledge. It is not enough to say "its in the Bible". We need to actually know that someone believes this about a particular biblical account.

In reference to the first sentence of the section which was changed to "Some Pentecostals and charismatics find it difficult to form a definitive portrait of the gift of the word of knowledge as they say there is a lack biblical examples that clearly reference it." I removed the "Some" in that sentence. It is not that "some" find it difficult, it is that it is difficult. There is not a unanimous opinion among Pentecostals and charismatics as to what is the word of knowledge because examples are never clearly shown to be the word of knowledge and many of the examples such as the one in John are extremely close to prophecy.Ltwin (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)