Knowledge talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive

3003:

NPOV complaint and appeal to the highest against the unfair policy that is being enforced. There is clearly widespread tolerance for capitalizing Biblical in exactly the same manner that every other proper adjective in the language is capitalized; even the Chicago Manual Online who is the foremost authority cited in support of lowercase, admits some flexibility for capitalizing the word. There is far more support and precedent to be found in the English speaking world for 'Biblical' than there is for 'vedic' and 'talmudic', two instances where this flagrantly biased policy explicitly allows for flexibility, while denying that same flexibility to the Bible. This is an area where we cannot afford to look biased; it is already easy enough for detractors to point to examples of this kind of thing, but this gives one more example that is very easy to point to, and is very easily corrected. The reason 'vedic' and 'talmudic' look wrong is because they are practically never seen, whereas 'Biblical' is commonplace, endorsed by the US and Canadian government printing offices, American Heritage dictionary, and a number of less famous sources. So the one-sided, double standard policy recently enforced by Noeta at WP:MOSCAPS not only makes little sense and is unfair, but appears to be a case of having Knowledge yet again break new, original ground with a novel stance that no style guide I have ever seen - and I have been looking at just about every style guide there is available - has ever adopted.

3660:. The disadvantage I immediately see is that of the first 20 pages which come up, 5 use both the upper and lower case within sentences. If that is the case overall, then we've probably got about 2500 articles which fail to meet style guidelines on that basis alone. Tolerating one or the other would not be a problem, but the MOS had previously indicated it should be one or the other, not both in the same article. Also, I note that many people write in many different ways. That's why we have a MOS in the first place, to standardize usage for greatest possible comprehension by the greatest possible numbers. The MOS already doesn't "tolerate" such variant usages in the same article. And, yes, there are several of the major style guidelines that do say the lower case is the norm, seemingly more major style guides than say otherwise. Under those circumstances, I can see having the discussion, but accusing others of being in some way acting in bad faith is itself problematic and more likely to alienate everybody than actually prove at all successful in furthering discussion. 908:

known city whose existence has been proven wouldn't be enough. Also, presumably, a lot of the specific stories relative to the Gospels and Acts would qualify, given the plethora of movies, paintings, and whatnot about them. Provided, of course, that they are specifically relevant to the artwork in question. And, regarding the Hebrew Bible, those stories which have either significantly impacted the public consciousness, like Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc., would presumably merit articles as well. I'm also assuming that texts which have been subject of heated discussion between various Jewish or Christian groups regarding translation or interpretation might qualify, particularly if they were involved in some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like. In the other cases, and here I'm thinking of things like Proverbs, any further articles beyond the parent one would probably only be created if the existing article gets too large. This is at least a good start for selecting what to create articles on.

3543:

move of the last 70 years to make "Bible" into the only proper noun in the entire English language that suddenly switches to lowercase as an adjective; simply because no other rationale was ever offered for this uniqueness. This raises another problem to me, which is that such "politically correct" formulations, often, tend to rely on just this machiavellian sort of solution, a prescriptive philosophy that selectively holds tilting the balance in favor of the perceived or claimed "underdogs", and against perceived or claimed "hegemonistic" forces, to be a more powerful driving force than maintaining strict even handedness and neutrality on sensitive issues, resulting in policies that are not only obviously skewed, but deliberately so with the selective application of this rationale. By the way, note that I used "machiavellian" here in its popular meaning as a common adjective, so I did not capitalize it; it can also be a proper adjective when discussing, say, "the corpus of Machiavellian literature".

3647:

comment. I sure wouldn't want to see a team of gung-ho wikilawyers now start trawling through every single article and replacing all instances of "Biblical" (there must be tens of thousands since this is a common variant that really ought to be tolerated like all other common variants are.) 'vedic' and 'talmudic' are not common forms at all, but seem to have been expressly permitted solely for the arbitrary appearance of it, with a original and novel, ground-breaking policy of selective inflexibility and selective flexibility, that is harsher against "Biblical" than any before ever seen; even the online Chicago manual of style (which if we were not so selective, would also dictate that we write "queen Elizabeth, president Hoover, and pope John Paul") admits that Biblical is frequently, and not wrongly, capitalized. I am asking the uncompromising editors to at least be tolerant of the capital, because that is the way many people do indeed write it.

1680:

book) as opposed to all other book titles that are routinely capitalized. (Remember that Christians do not have a monopoly on the Bible, it is revered by various other faiths as well.) It seems the wikipedia editors who use the term "biblical" will quite often also write the title of the book as "bible", even while capitalizing the title of every other book in the world. This is also indicative of the same mentality because "Bible" is obviously a Proper Noun, not a common noun. I dispute your assertion that "most other sources" on Google favor "biblical", from what I can google it seems "Biblical" is overwhelmingly preferred. As for "Quixotic literature": Sarah Florence Wood (2005) in her treatise on Quixotic Literature always capitalizes Quixotic when used as a Proper Noun ("In her preface to

5440:

Bible, or any part of it, as "mythology", simply because those who resent this rhetoric are significant in number, and that a more neutral compromise wording should be found to express what they are trying to say. The problem is that such a neutral compromise would defeat their purpose which is to have a POV article that is inflammatory to the millions who choose to believe the Bible is factual; therefore they have declared that the concerns of all those editors who disagree with them is invalid, and only their own POV counts. Even the Pope has written a book asking people to stop referring to the Bible as "mythology", so the disagreement and the existence of other POVs can easily be sourced. I am overwhelmed and fatigued trying to explain at

3637:, is you. On that basis, one can reasonably wonder who the instigator of the "argument" is. I do think that the existing policies and guidelines, particularly those regarding standardization of spelling and apparently capitalization, should hold sway here. While it is possible for references to "vedic" as in perhaps "vedic cooking" can exist, I sincerely wonder how often, if ever, such use has appeared here. Also, it seems to me that the entire issue could be avoided by simply using the word Bible in conjunction with some other word to avoid the issue altogether. I sincerely wonder whether this is becoming, at least to some people, something drawing much more attention than circumstances would apparently indicate it warrants. 4803:

the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at

2064:

something about every one of those examples in their usage that makes them more "common" descriptors rather than "proper" (like the Title of a book is obviously a proper noun, so we capitalise book titles). I don't think any of thise examples are comparable to taking an obvious proper noun like the title of a book and insisting it be treated as common for no given reason whatsoever. Some sources do claim that both biblical and Biblical are acceptable, and it's true both forms seem to enjoy some currency, but I am not convinced that 'biblical' should be chosen or preferred on grounds that it allegedly has 'more' currency, especially because I am not convinced that it is the case that it has more currency.

1104:. I think what we have now in the "content" outlines in the gospels articles is sufficient. We don't need another article on Luke 22 to summarize the half a dozen spinout articles that already cover that content (not to mention the same episodes are retold in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and partially John 13 and 18). Finally, I do not believe that most of the articles on the other books of the bible are at the point where they are too long and would require spinning out. We should finish the individual book articles before starting individual chapter articles. Perhaps we should focus our energies for the time being in improving (and maybe even reaching FA status) on individual books.- 5461:

future, not yet occurred, events) be considered 'factual'?) I would suggest that both terms could be considered biased (non-neutral). And that both terms are far too broad and "clunky" for detailed discussion and understanding. Countering someone else's blanket, scatter-gun 'mythology' with our(?) own, similarly blanket scatter-gun, 'factual' would seem to be unproductive. Most Biblical scholars today (leaving aside the small "Jesus seminar") would recognise significant historicity in (say) the Gospels; but they would equally recognise significant, probably majority, mythological aspects in (say) the early chapters of Genesis (including Noah and Babel). Hope that helps.

2411:

fondly remember the very earliest days at Knowledge, when our editing population was much tinier, and all editors were strongly discouraged from revealing any of their personal views or sympathies on their homepages, in order to promote thinking "neutral", and those few who did, were correspondingly taken less seriously as 'neutral' editors; but those days appear to be permanently a thing of the past now, how very sad) and now we are seeing the promotion of bias, singling out, and open condescension by using every trick in the book, picking and choosing our "authorities", just in order to have double standards and disguise an underlying POV as "neutral".

1284:

for all proper adjectives in English. However, it seems that there are a few academic style guides that apparently make a single exception for the Proper Adjective to describe the Bible, and insist that it be written "biblical" rather than "Biblical". I advise that Knowledge in order to maintain a semblance of neutrality, not adopt this style, which I claim is followed by a minority, but the editor debating me claims by a majority. It is inherently unfair and inconsistent to reserve a special rule for the Bible among all other books and insist its accompanying adjective be the only Proper Adjective in the English language to be written in lowercase.

436:

not a very significant viewpoint, and so the article should side with scholarly theories and conjectures on the authorship, and has no obligation to stay neutral to all viewpoints. They are at the point now where they are threatening to have me banned from editing the article, because so far I am practically alone in standing in their way of a one-sided hack job. Note that I am not trying to omit a full discussion of their view from the article, but I only think it is fair that they likewise allow some space to other sources on what is canonical even though they may disagree with them.

3013:

meanings the word has, referring both to the Bible itself as well as the entire "biblicaL" era, I think that it could be problematic to actually say that, as all it would be doing would be breaking up the argument to every page where such differences in capitalization occur. Again, though, I would welcome seeing your indicating exactly where specific editors agreed with your contention regarding capitalization, largely for the ease of reference of any other editors coming to this discussion and because all the comments immediately nearby seem to be basically disagreeing.

5755:, and I was shocked at the quality of the article. I was embarrassed. I completely cut away the last "paragraph" of the article because the author didn't use any punctuation, and I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say. Much of the rest of the stub is in bad shape, lacking references, poor phraseology, poor grammar, etc. I tried to fix a few run on sentences, but I finally decided to call in the experts in the field for a major overhaul. So I come to you, WikiProject Bible, and present to you an article in your area in great need of some help. 2509:

mischaracterized as a "few select style guides". I grant you we don't yet have knowledge of what the MLA guide says on the subject, and that information would have to be available before a real decision could be reached. But I do think it is fair that we let the bulk of the people who do seem to define usage of the English language today provide guidance on how the English language is to be used here. As state before, however, it is a bit premature to make any conclusive statement, pending the availability of the MLA information on the subject.

6583:

Tree of Life." After reading the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church webpage that links as reference number 28, I don't think I will change from my current form of Christianity, but have become etomologicaly (I'll officially take credit for that word if it doesn't already exist) confused. Since I don't speak read and write all of the languages in question, and there would be serious doubts of anyone speaking all of the languages (with knowledge of idioms and so forth), this forum seems to be a great way to pool that knowledge.

5869:

and this is where the shorter and more specific lists come in. I would also include more information on each name than the big list provides (i.e. relation to other persons, tribal or national affiliation, chapters and verses they appear in, etc.), although I would be aiming for brevity rather than completeness (which is what an article is for). I would make each list as comprehensive as possible. I was also thinking of making lists of places named in each book as well. Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? --

3680:

many people do indeed write it." In other words, I am asking you and all those editors so far who have voted for 'lowercase b all the time', to please reconsider their votes and be more tolerant of Biblical; because it gets added that way every day, it extends the exact same respect accorded to the Quran, Veda, Talmud, Avesta etc., and is often deemed acceptable; and as it has been before this RFC, it seems like a personal preference much like 'color' and colour' where one variant is not "enforced".

151: 6628:, including me, have come to the conclusion that it might make things a bit easier for us, with our roughly 30,000 articles, to have navigation boxes to link some of the articles which most directly link to the topics which are of highest importance to our project. This includes some biblical material. I want everyone to know that we are not seeking to lay some sort of "claim" on the material. All the templates, including the Biblical ones, that currently exist can be found at 2156:

also many, many sources stating that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable variants. In the vital interests of maintaining a semblance of neutrality, Knowledge should not insist on enforcing a unique lowercase standard for one religious book. I suggest we get some third opinions rather than let one editor pontificate that Knowledge must adhere to select, carefully chosen style guides as, er, the gospel authorities for the (unofficially regulated) English language.

246:

have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at

91: 898:, because of the way it has impacted societal expressions of assistance towards strangers (although the article iteself needs to clarify this more). Sodom and Gammorah, obviously, have had an impact on language and attitudes towards gays. Any major archeology expedition could be used to show relevance of stories about specific sites, such as Jericho. And that's just off the top of my head - I'm sure that many other avenues exist to show their notability. 205:, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. 32: 2547:

specifically and explicitly using the word as an adjectival form of Bible would be reasonable. However, as noted above, that is not the only usage the word receives, and, possibly out of respect, it has become tradition to not capitalize it in those instances when it isn't clearly and explicitly referring to the Bible itself. There is of course a major grey area in the middle between those two poles, however, and that is the bulk of the problem here.

2397:, as somehow showing the impartiality we are supposed to show. I was taught all my life that the reason for capitalisation of proper nouns and adjectives is that it is a mark of respect -- being an actual name of something, book title, etc.. -- given even to our worst enemies' names. The only argument or rationale we have seen presented for following Chicago Manual et al. is basically the one that says it simply has to be, because 6332:). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found 4899:. I think that, if it were to be used, the talk pages of the various articles relevant to this project might be made substantially less cluttered. It is I hope understood that the simple fact of having variant options does not mean that they will necessarily all be used each time, however. Anyway, I would welcome input on whether we should perhaps alter the banner to include the additional specifications or not. 3977:(outdent) Just a little note regarding prescriptivism. This word is a very good word to avoid. It is normally used by people who think they know what is right, to avoid interacting with criticisms of their position. "Don't listen to them, they're prescriptivists." Prescriptivism is not vicious, it is helpful. All language is prescriptive or we'd not have common meanings for words, spelling, letters or sounds. 2939:, but WP tends to use lower case when either will do, as they plainly will here. "Biblical Hebrew" is of course an exception. I'm not sure we need to do more than add this as an example of encouraging lower-case usage though; phrasing style guidelines prescriptively usually means that a half-dozen empty-headed editors take off harassing other people about "violating MOS" as though it were policy. 2574: 4051:

much, it's part of the family, as it were. Vedic and Qur'anic "feel" right because we don't quite know what to do with them, lower case suggests we'd be expected to be familiar with the referent. A young reader can gloss right over Melchizedek -- long name beginning with M -- capitals often signal -- specialized-specific-word-understood-from-context-alone-please-dont-panic.

6760:. I realize that this portal listed above is not exclusively related to Christianity, and acknowledge that. However, because the subject material is related to a fairly large extent, it makes sense to have it included anyway. If anyone here is involved in the upkeep of the above portal, please feel free to look at the page above and offer any input you see fit. Thank you. 3720:. You were also the editor who insisted on a definitive guideline, rather than simply acknowledging that both are acceptable and allowing the editors of each article to decide which usage to favor. Now that it appears that such a guideline would probably not favor your usage, you're suddenly willing to compromise and hope that other editors will be tolerant to the capital 81: 63: 876:

toward a desired conclusion here, but am personally clearly not sure how to define this. I am assuming, however, based on the above, that if there are a number of artistic works (paintings, sculptures, dramas, what have you) relating to a given "story" that it would qualify as significant enough for it's own article, which is a start, but at this point only a start.

2111:. The "why" (from a linguistic/grammatical perspective) is not particularly important for the purposes of editing Knowledge. You obviously think that knowing the reason for this inconsistency is important, and if you really need to know, I'm sure you can send an email to the Society of Biblical Literature (or Merriam-Webster, etc.) and ask them why 6242:, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. 6884:

about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

6417:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 4654:, which is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, is included, but would those books which are no longer considered necessarily canonical by any Abrahamic religion, but are still, at least nominally, "Biblical", like the apocryphal book 3 Maccabees, be considered as within the scope of this project or not? 5503:. However those editors who are of the opinion that the Bible is a "myth", wish to present this as an indisputable, "fact" as if there were no disagreement or debate, are do not seem to be willing to face any of these reliable sources. This has come up on several pages. I also added a neutrality dispute tag to 2439:"not koranically" or whatever in its place, and that this effective corruption of the usage of the world "biblical" in English is why the word isn't always capitalized. I know that's just apparently one opinion based on one particularly quote, but I think that the conclusion is one most people could understand. 5691:. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Knowledge 1.0 Editorial team, 1092:

believe it is much better to discuss each story as one, and add what the different gospels say regarding each episode, instead of having possibly 3 different articles on the exact same episode. And on the other hand, we may have a chapter such as Luke 22, that covers multiple episodes, such as Judas' plot, the

3092:

can't you accept defeat like a man? Who gives a fuck about your pet project. If 9 out of 10 dictionary don't use an uppercase "B", and I can read all kinds of magazines and newspapers who don't use it also, then who the hell are you to change that? YOU are the one trying to make an exception with "Biblical".

855:

frankly have no clue about how to handle the Proverbs. By "tale" above I am referring to the major coherent stories, such as Joshua at Jericho, Adam and Eve (which might itself get some subarticles), Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, and so on. I would welcome any discussion of this matter. Thank you.

6883:

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable

6582:

states "Elders of the modern religious movement known as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church consider cannabis to be the eucharist, claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ. Like the Rastafari, some modern Gnostic Christian sects have asserted that cannabis is the

6006:

One of the main aspects that I would like standardised is which translation should be preferred for quotations. Obviously if there is a reason to quote a specific translation, different translations should be used. However we should have a project page which clearly indicates which is preferred for

5444:

why it is inflammatory not neutral to declare any part of the Bible as "mythology" and would appreciate some fresh voices. Once they succeed at declaring one Biblical article "mythology", they will use exactly the same arguments to declare all other Biblical topics "mythology" no matter how one-sided

4802:

We are currently holding elections for coordinators to help ensure that directly project related activity, such as peer review, assessment, portal maintainance, and the like, are done for all the projects relating to Christianity. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators,

4268:

One of the problems I have run into on the topic of the 1611 KJV, is heavy opinion. The opinion that KJV is somehow vastly superior to all other translations, is undeniably an opinion. If one tries to source that versions validity one would only be sourcing another opinion, so you are right where you

4054:

One day, maybe, people will get to the point of saying "what a vedic train of thought that was," or "that was a lecture of rather qur'anic thoroughness," but until the day that the Vedas and Qur'an are widely understood household names, they are relegated to the capitalization English spray-paints on

3861:

Of course, this would be ignoring virtually every English Dictionary in the world, that explicitly state 'Biblical' is acceptable spelling, but what do silly Dictionary writers know, compared to the true authorities, the writers of style guides? (The ones that agree with "biblical", that is, not the

3197:

Well, dictionaries of the English language, as far as I can tell, do specify that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable forms, similar to the position I am recommending. There are many cases of adjectives that can be either common or proper, depending on if they are capitalized, like "Catholic" /

2073:

guideline of Knowledge is actually and seriously that we should write "Talmudic" "Vedic" and "Quranic" etc. etc. for every other genuine Proper Adjective, but that we should make a special allowance for "biblical" while pretending we are "neutral", then I want this guideline spelled out on the MOS to

1645:

is one of only a few exceptions to the grammatical convention of capitalizing proper adjectives, but that is not really the issue here. By the way, would anyone actually write "Quixotic literature", given the ease with which the phrase could be misconstrued (capitalized or not) to mean "whimsical and

1570:

capitalized (e.g., Him, His, etc.). From a linguistic standpoint, this is inconsistent (why does one (three?) God(s) out of thousands deserve to have pronouns capitalized?), but it is nonetheless a convention that has become accepted, given the heavy influence of Christianity upon the culture of most

1295:

All proper adjectives in the English language are capitalized. For example, we write "Quranic" and not quranic, "Vedic" and not vedic, "Australian" and not australian, so why must "Biblical" be a special exception? It makes no sense at all. If you check the history of the usage of the word, you will

1045:

I had an idea of creating 1189 pages of summary/commentary/issues of every chapter of the Bible. I actually started setting up the framework and got challenged two or three minutes in. Do you think that this would be a good project? My vision is for every chapter to be represented eventually. Say

907:

So at least a rough beginning standards for qualifying for a separate article would be having a number of works, including artistic and scientific, which would relate to the specific "story", provided that the story significantly deals with that subject. In this case, I think merely mentioning an old

5868:

is also more general than the lists I am thinking of making because it covers every noun listed in the Bible (i.e. names of persons, places, things, etc.). A person may instead want a more manageable and specific list such as 'tribes mentioned in Exodus' or 'individuals mentioned in Joshua' instead

5854:

I was thinking of creating lists of individuals and groups (tribes, nations, etc.) mentioned in each book of the Bible. I would start with Genesis and move through the rest of the Bible over time (unless other people decided to complete lists for other books of the Bible, in which case I could skip

4194:

settled, pretty well, out there in the World. It is they, out there in the world, who have strength in numbers. Heavens, I for one would love to see the language reformed (starting with punctuation!), but I'm only one of the billions who use this language. It's all about consensus, and realism. CMOS

3754:

capitalization is consistent throughout the article, I personally don't care which is used. Also, I once again note that there are various ways to use the word Bible in combination with other words which would allow capitalization even when the lower case "biblical" is used elsewhere in the article.

2546:

You're right, English ain't governed by no explicitly controlled authority, like maybe French is or isn't. That don't mean that we ain't supposed to follow conventions, so as we don't make it too hard for others to understand. In this particular case, I can and do see that capitalizing the word when

2460:

Those cases show that there is a common adjective "biblical", alongside the proper adjective that is clearly referring to the book, the Bible. (quite similar to the difference between "Quixotic literature" (P.Adj) and "quixotic literature" (c.adj.) as demonstrated above) There is also a common noun

2410:

Such a policy would be the clearest sign to the world yet, of impartiality totally falling by the wayside at Knowledge thanks to editors who proudly wear their POV-pushing special interest labels like a badge and spill vast quantities of virtual ink, all the while pretending to be 'disinterested' (I

796:

is a website containing translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs , Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. This books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences. He gives a mathematical

6899:

or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help

6485:

maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking

5859:

but I think creating a list for each book of the Bible is a good idea because some people may find a list for each book more useful that the vast alphabetically-organized list that already exists. Each book of the Bible can be considered a unique literary work so a list for each book makes sense.

5439:

Several editors hold the POV that the Bible is "mythology" and dispute that any other opinion could be valid. History clearly shows that this term has been used in an antagonistic and polemic sense to attack the believers in the Bible. I contend that it is not neutral for wikipedia to declare the

4668:

If a significant religious group (like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - which is the main form of Christianity in Ethiopia) believe that its part of the Bible then I would say that it is clearly within the scope of the project. The Goals section of the project page also includes Apocrypha within the

4538:

contained cannabis extracts, "kaneh bosm," and that it is also listed as an incense tree in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. The early Christians used cannabis oil for medicinal purposes and as part of the baptismal process to confirm the forgiveness of sins and "right of

4038:

Hmmm, there is a problem with this discussion. The problem is that there are good arguments for both sides. Where people have put a case for either side I think they've done quite a good job. When it comes to commenting on the opposing position, however, I think both sides have resorted to rhetoric

3339:

As I have just learned, Chicago also recommends writing "pope, president, and queen" in lowercase in *all* situations (unlike say, Knowledge), but still admits that while they themselves try to use lowercase wherever possible, these are "words that you will often see capped elsewhere." (see link in

3081:

It's funny that you should recommend me to let it go; if you hadn't goaded me with your personal digs and comments, I might have done so, but now I am struck even more by the onesided unfairness of the policy allowing maximum flexibility to every religious book BUT the Bible, so I am now going to

2691:

So long as it is considered normative to title books with upper case letters, it will be proper to title the Bible (and it's companion adjective "Biblical") with an upper case letter. Any other choice is inconsistent if not universally applied to all the , which itself would be a gross violation of

2536:

Okay, but since English is not an officially regulated language like French, I don't know how much we can claim any specific style guides are anything like "the most universally followed". That's pretending there is some consensus in the English speaking world on style matters, when there is often

2155:

I do believe it is a type of prejudice or bias that would ultimately account for the reason that all other books get capitalized proper adjectives, but a special, unique exemption is shown for this one. There is no comparable case in English for such a proper adjective being lower case. There are

2127:

and official Knowledge guideline on that. However, the lack of a guideline is not the point. Knowledge cannot possibly have a guideline covering every single usage variation (although I do not object to a guideline in this case), so the appropriate thing to do in the absence of a specific guideline

2122:

insists that only the first word of headings should be capitalized? I think it looks ugly and I don't see any good reason for it, but my opinion is irrelevant; I am still expected to only capitalize the first word in article headings. I know you're probably thinking that article headings are not an

1369:

is simply not capitalized in the vast majority of printed sources published within the last 50 years. That counts for something. This is not a "Knowledge-specific" issue, it is a matter of common usage. Like I said, you may not agree with the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to go

1343:

Knowledge has no such specific policy to write "biblical" while at the same time writign "Vedic" "Talmudic" and "Koranic", etc. If you can, please show me this policy. This is a grave injustice that needs to be dealt with, and it is perhaps indicative of the special vehemence certain POV scholars

1283:

regarding capitalization. It seems that on wikipedia, all proper adjectives are capitalized, eg. we are supposed write 'Vedic' when describing the Veda, 'Talmudic' for the Talmud, 'Lithuanian' for Lithuania, etc., that is, as opposed to "vedic" "talmudic" and "lithuanian". That is the normal rule

1117:

I am opposed to creating the articles just for the sake of them. Although most of the Bible is notable, I do not believe that the chapters are notable as distinct units, particularly since they aren't original. We have articles discussing the subject matter in many biblical chapters, so any article

875:

The question then becomes (1) how to we define their "specific impact on society" and (2) does having a large number of published works, such as sermons or teachings, in and of itself qualify as having a specific impact on society? I hope it is understood that I am not trying to lead the discussion

489:

with several editors who want to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV but they are now adding the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those who do not agree

435:

over how much representation should be given to the view that it was actually written by the prophet Daniel. I don't know about other Churches, but my church definitively states it was written by Daniel, (at least in its original form). The other three editors are basically insisting that this is

222:

lists an alternate way to make Bible references. Ideally, there would be one template to the most versatile and preferably non-commercial (until someone comes up with something better, its the usyd.edu.au site). The alternate MS-made templates boast some added functionality, but does this start the

6995:

There's a flag saying it needs an expert edit. I have good claim to be an expert on the subject, so i did a pretty complete edit, added a bunch of references, etc. What else should be done (if anything) in order to remove the flag, and hopefully get the article recategorized as past "Start" level?

5507:

because the article is totally one-sided, but it was removed by an admin who curtly informed me that I lack the standing to dispute an article, because "there is no dispute" that the Bible is a myth. Several editors besides have complained about this refusal to present all sides of view, but those

4166:

I really, really wish you wouldn't frame it as "Til against the world"... That is disingenuous, because as I have already pointed out, I have been in agreement with several comments by other editors, governmental style guides, and the American Heritage Dictionary, so far. Heck, I even support the

3501:

respected dictionaries, and practically all major style guides (which themselves use those dictionaries as authorities), is perfectly clear. (I ignore those truly minor style guides that Til has retrieved, above. With effort, you can prove all sorts of ideologically driven points with the likes of

3340:

below section). So, since we do not follow Chicago's recommendation to always write "president Bush" and "queen Elizabeth", it therefore still seems, even more, like we are going rather out of our way to claim special or unusual circumstances in order to create an exception just for this one case.

3122:

It is not Til v World by any means - see my post above. I see that I reproduced some thinking in my above post, but so be it. In the circles I deal with (at a mainline seminary), it is convention to use the spelling "Biblical". As said before, it is consensus that matters, so let me spell it how I

3002:

No, it isn't just me by any means. How can you honestly pretend that other thoughtful editors have not agreed with me? I was really starting to let this issue go and tend to other matters, but now that you have attempted to single me out and make an example of me, I am going to have to pursue an

2712:

Actually, it should be noted that the question is not about capitalizing "Bible", but about capitalizing the word "biblical". In those cases in which the word Bible is used to refer to those books which are included in one or more of the books included in either the Jewish or Christian Bible, I am

2433:

For what little it might be worth, I think one of the major reasons "biblical" isn't capitalized anymore is that, because the Bible is such a present factor in Western, including English, life, it's usage has gone beyond simply referring to the Bible to a broader usage, and on that basis it can be

1461:

being used on Knowledge (not in the first word of a sentence, obviously). I don't honestly understand why this is a problem, and I especially do not understand how you can find "prejudice" and "grave injustice" in a simple style issue. Please try to take the emotionality out and look at the facts.

1091:

Currently, I am also opposed to creating 1189 articles just for the sake of having them. As John point out, at times the chapter creation was rather arbitrary, and there may be a more contextual way to break up the biblical books. For the synoptic gospels, there is a lot of repeated content, and I

558:

No, that's a very bad idea. The reason is that Bible Gateway is very biased in its selection; it excludes all scholarly versions (like the NRSV) and all Catholic version of the Bible (like the NAB), as well as Septuagint-based (LXX) versions (whether Greek or English). The Bible reference template

459:

This article was a list of three figures from the Jewish Bible when it was put up for deletion. The subject deserves an article, and I'm trying to flesh it out with examples from Christianity (where the concept is obviously important) as well as examples from Islam and other religions. Please help

267:

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at

4050:

of the Bible over Veda, Qur'an etc. Words most amenable to being accepted as lower case are those that have become so much part of the culture that they are virtually common noun phrases, popular perception has lost sight of the Roman in roman numeral or French in french fry. We "own" the word so

3907:

Here's something else I just found, and right from the horse's mouth: Chicago Style Guide Online's explanation of why they have preferred "biblical" since at least 1949, while at the same time admitting that "In house" style guides are entitled to differ, and concluding with a recommendation that

3679:

But I didn't accuse anyone of acting in bad faith (except maybe that pleasant, anonymous fellow who wrote 'Til is a douche' was in bad faith for writing that, hey thanks!) What I just wrote is: "I am asking the uncompromising editors to at least be tolerant of the capital, because that is the way

3542:

Thank you, your comments have confirmed to me exactly what I was suspecting all along. I had a fairly good idea that "implications concerning the status of the Christian Bible and therefore concerning a common Christian hegemonistic view of the world" were really at stake behind this inexplicable

3091:

Personal digs? What the hell are you talking about? Pointing out that you are a single user on an obvious crusade is not a personal dig. Anyway, good luck appealing this "all the way". I'm sure the result will be alot different than this rfc. That kind of attitude is what I was talking about. Why

2498:

should be written "biblical", because these specific style guides say so." I thought common sense was supposed to prevail, but if a few select style guides can be used to trump neutrality policy and common sense, "just because that's the way it is, no other explanation or reason necessary", then

2438:

once talk about how he though he landed the job of Doctor Who because he knew the wife of one of the people involved in hiring the new actor for the role, and then added regarding knowing her, "not biblically, of course." It is inconceivable to me that anyone would every say "not vedantically" or

2259:

This "dispute between two editors" has the potential to affect Knowledge MOS guidelines, so I think an official Request for Comment on the RFCrel listing would be more appropriate. I can use AWB to post neutrally-worded links to the RFC on all article talk pages within the appropriate categories.

1565:

is clearly an acceptable variant. However, I think you are making an error by assuming that this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity. There are many inconsistencies in English usage, and they often have a relatively simple explanation that does not point to any "grave

1057:

I would tend to oppose it, simply on the basis that the chapter delineations are somewhat arbitrary. We have discussed above creating separate articles for each major "story" within the Bible, regardless of number of chapters, and I think that that approach, which allows for the discussion of the

245:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who

5460:

I would agree that attaching the tag 'mythology' to the whole Bible is non-neutral. But attaching the tag 'factual' to whole Bible would also be non-neutral. (Example 1: Can the sweep of the psalms be described as either 'mythology' or 'factual'? Example 2: Can Revelation (loosely, a vision of

4171:

recommendation, which is actually far more lenient toward Biblical than some people around here seem to be. Please do not resort to 'divide and conquer' type tactics which are a logical fallacy rarely producing positive fruit and extremely bad for assuming good faith. This includes the tactic of

2818:

I tend to think that this probably should be the case, particularly as there do seem to be guidelines regarding consistent spelling, which presumably includes capitalization. In those instances when the word would clearly be used in a capital sense, the phrasing could be changed so that the word

1679:

It seems you are totally misrepresenting me, since I have never stated anything like "this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity", nor have I even once used "Christianity" as an example in my argument. When I said "prejudice", I meant against the Bible (the title of a

854:

about what "sections" of the Bible are sufficiently notable in and of themselves to have separate articles. My personal belief is that any major "tale" of the Bible should qualify as its own article, and that the Psalms in particular each probably deserve at least an individual section apiece. I

571:

As I am new to this project (and Knowledge actually) please forgive me if this is a silly question or one that has already been addressed. I was reading over this project's goals and according to #2 we are to unify the presentation of the individual books of the bible. My question is, is there a

292:

is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being

6647:

I'm all in favour of rationalising. Many thanks for taking on this challenge! Can I offer a suggestion? Many of our articles have fully -expanded navigation side-boxes occupying masses of screen "real estate" from the top downwards, almost as if they were adverts. Can I suggest that we consider

6115:

All of which are quite different, and range from very broad (all homosexuality is a detestable sin) to very narrow (if you're married and want to have gay sex, don't do it in your wife's bed, that's just sick). I picked this particular passage precisely because its one of those with the widest

5498:

In response to this, I have created a user sub-page showing that there is extensive debate with many points of view and that reliable sources are not quite so unanimous about whether or not the Bible is "myth", or whether it s proper to deliberately redefine "myth" so broadly just to be able to

3646:

Those weren't my exact words, but I did say something on someone's talkpage to the same effect as "this is becoming a full blown argument". At the same time, as one of the two people who started the RFC, I don't deny being the "instigator" of it. That is the whole point, to get more people to

3071:

Til said that "This is an area where we cannot afford to look biased." I agree and I think the best way not to look biased is to follow what other publications and style guides do, which is use a small "b" on "biblical". If wikipedia was to ignore the actual usage of the word in print and style

2988:

Obviously, it should be "biblical". I'm not sure why this is an RfC. I can't personally recall seeing the word capitalized in normal use. Shouldn't the use of "biblical" in all the guides and dictionaries listed above have decided this issue before it got to the point of an RFC? When I read the

1430:

This is prejudice and will obviously have to be dealt with to establish a specific, fair site-wide policy. I would also dispute that the uses of "biblical" as opposed to "Biblical" are or ever have been in the majority. Siding with style guides that single out just one proper adjective is not

680:

Textual criticism of the Bible is an area I try to keep on top of, and is rather poorly covered at Wiki atm. I'm taking initiatives to get the basic data up and running, and would love assistance. Experts are very welcome, but it's a great way to learn, so welcome to all comers. Also, we're not

390:- the article should be moved there, as that's the far more usual name. It is just a name though. Its a bit like having separate articles for "Odds bodkins", "Gadzooks", and "Zounds", all of which are swear words referencing Jesus - "God's body-kin", "God's hooks", "God's wounds", respectively. 5936:

I understand that this would take time and do not plan to complete it anytime soon (unless other people joined in, possibly). I was thinking of taking a particular version of the Bible written in English (i.e. King James, New Revised Standard, etc.) and compiling the lists from that. Scholarly

3510:

If we are trying to establish a durable guideline for use in Knowledge, we will certainly not get it by adopting Til's flexible solution, no matter how internally logical that solution may seem. We can't reinvent English usage entirely! While we should be bold in setting up new standards where

3153:

To sum up, my position is that we should follow common sense and prefer "biblical" when obviously used as a common adjective, but "Biblical" when used as a proper adjective (to accompany "Bible", and commensurate with "Talmud / Talmudic", "Veda / Vedic", "Quran / Quranic", and all other proper

3012:

It would be useful if you could point toward specific statements made by others here to support your contention then. Personally, I wouldn't myself mind seeing both capitalized and uncapitalized, so long as one version is consistently used within any given article. However, given the different

2392:

I'm glad this will be going to RFC. This question will be illustrative of whether Knowledge will slavishly follow the Chicago Manual et. al as the ultimate regulating authority for details of the English language (equivalent to the Sorbonne for French), in order to validate a sentence such as

893:

Good questions. Some stories, like the creation myth and the Flood, show their significance in that they are stories that transcend the Biblical accounts and have had many scholarly works written about them. Artistic works are another good indicator and would cover a lot of the Gospel stories.

6755:

I am attempting to help make it easier for all the various portals which relate to Christian subjects do not disproportionately use certain articles relevant to their subject and in the process find other good articles relevant to the subject not being used as often as they could. Toward that

4141:

Checking back, I think Ruakh made the point better than either of us. In two lines he addressed directly a major concern of Til's. He heard the issue, made no accusations, no appeals to authority, registered no vote, just demonstrated a sensitivity for usage and offered a new angle that helps

2063:

Re: "these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.)" Even if those adjectives were ultimately derived from proper nouns, there seems to be

1523:

Just pointing out, I am only representing myself as a neutral editor trying to ensure even-handedness across the board; I am not aware of any "Christian lobby" on this issue, but it may be that most editors at Knowledge would agree with me on the neutrality issue here and not make any special

1919:

proper adjective not capitalized (apparently an indication of prejudice against the Bible), these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.):

1744:. There is not much point in continuing to debate in the absence of any evidence indicating that there is anything worth debating. If you can provide solid evidence, I will concede your point. I don't really have a horse in this race. I simply think Wiki usage should reflect general usage. — 1687:) However, here is an example from another work where it is clearly used as a common adjective (i.e., not referring to the book, but as a descriptive adjective, "quixotic"): "His sense of irony elevates the movie beyond the level of facile satire and into a fresh form of quixotic literature. 617:

would be a way to rekindle interest in the activities of the existing projects and possibly improve the amount and quality of content related to the Bible and related subjects, which is I think the ultimate goal of both projects. And, of course, I think the potential of redundant banners and

4205:

Since the word "biblical" is rarely used other than in reference to a book of sacred scriptures, I doubt that readers would misconstrue its meaning, especially in a religious context. If you find that lowercasing it in your writing results in ambiguity, however, then by all means uppercase

3753:

Also note that I and several others have expressed agreement to the idea above already. It was only when we were asked to create one standard that it seemed to the bulk of us reasonable to follow what seems to be the existing consensus of major non-governmental style guides. As long as the

3580:

I see no evidence that the lowercasing of "biblical" is P.C. underdoggery; it seems equally likely to me that the reverse is true, and the lowercasing of "biblical" actually originated with Christians who considered it a sufficiently commonplace adjective as not to warrant capitalization.

4189:

you, or wants to pillory you. (Unless you'd enjoy that, of course... see me at my talk page if you're interested.) You must excuse our merry pranks! It's just that it seems you want to push a particular way no matter what. Step back and think about it again. The plain fact is that usage

2508:

No, the style guide should not make inherently POV statements such as the one you made above. In this case, it might be argued that "common sense" is to follow the existing guidelines of the most universally followed style guides out there, which you above I believe possibly knowingly

6037:

unless it is critically discussed on the Knowledge article (i.e. removing the full text of long poems). In that vein, most Knowledge articles about bible verses contain a section with many different translations. Wikisource has been slowly growing a complete interlinear bible (e.g.

3980:

A question arises when people from different backgrounds want to work on the same project, "what will be our common terminology?" Appeals to various authorities are then made, but any authority is by nature a prescription, and the very discussion is about establishing a prescription.

3984:

If we're against prescription, we need to delete all Wiki policies (and specifically those to do with style). But we're not against prescription really, we're against prescriptions that don't suit our tastes. And that's OK, but it goes without saying and applies equally to everyone.

5536:

in articles? I feel that the use of "Yahweh" in Biblical quotes and references is POV, since this is not the common name found in English Bibles, and is only one possible transliteration, of which the correct one will probably never be known. In such cases, I usually use either

548:

There are many article that reference a Bible verse or passage. Is there any on going effort or planned effort to try to search through articles and convert references to links to the passage on Bible Gateway or wikisource? I think that'd be a good task (probably for a bot).

4722:

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks to all who participated!

1431:

neutral, and unfair. BTW, "Quixotic" is capitalised when it is used as a proper adjective, that is, to refer to the accompanying proper noun, eg. "in Quixotic literature" perhaps. But it is not capitalised when used as a common adjective, to describe an abstract quality.

4100:

can be seen as favouring the Bible-believers! To have names like those of the Bible, the Tripitaka, and the Granth Sahib capitalised but not italicised already sets those venerated volumes apart from all mere secular works, of base sublunary import. But if the adjective

4015:

Let me just boldly finish with a general point, by which I do not mean to give offence: When it begins to seem that no weight of evidence could make any difference to one's position, it may be time to stand well back and think freshly about that position and about one's

3526:

865:

They would all have to conform to Knowledge standards, most notably in this case having 3rd party reliable sources that point to it's cultural importance. By that I don't mean sermons or teachings based on them, but critical analyses of their specific impact on society.

6444:

in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ?

5173:

with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Knowledge 1.0 scheme! For the

6632:. Anyone who would wish to make any comments or suggestions on any of them is free to do so there. And, yes, most of the ones I've recently created aren't real pretty yet. I figured I'd wait till we knew what all was in them before I tried to make them more appealing. 5475:

Mythical in Biblical studies does not mean non-factual. It relates to the way the narrative is important to the self-understanding of a community, or it's understanding of the cosmos. As confusing as it may be to the non-scholar, something may be mythical and factual

5342:

Currently, 834 articles are assigned to this project, of which 270, or 32.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See

5618:

is very POV, as that literally is about four letters. It covers interpretations of those letters, beliefs about them, about pronouncing them, and about attempted reconstructions of pronunciation. What it doesn't cover is discussion of the deity itself - that's what

460:

now and we can help a lot of readers with a useful encyclopedia article. As a side benefit, it would be useful to demonstrate (politely) that the subject is serious enough not to deserve the scorn that is part of the deletion discussion now. The discussion is here:

6245:

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. —

3198:"catholic". As for style guides, *so far* I have found numerous style manuals and guides that do state Proper Adjectives are -always- capitalized in English without exception; but none of them includes "Biblical" as a specific example of this, except for this one: 2187:. Unfortunately for you, no one else seems to care. Prejudice? Then why do these organization (representing Bible-believing Christians and the majority of biblical scholars) continue to perpetuate this "prejudice" when they could simply use the acceptable variant, 2727:

I'm getting caught up fast - Anyways, in the decade to come, "Bushisms" will continue to be a word bounced around. Are you going to charge that this word should be lowercase? The popular press will continue to use the capitalization regardless of your preference.

3057:

No, I didn't. However, I think in the interests of full disclosure it should be indicated that one seems to have favored capitalization in all instances, and another to have agreed with your specific proposal. They do not necessarily fully agree with each other.

2796:). I think that usage on Knowledge should reflect the predominant usage in reliable sources, rather than an appeal to emotionality or grammatical prescriptivism. If this is basically a American/British usage difference, then I think we should follow current 3354:

Hi, I'm an uninterested outside party to this discussion. I think it may not be necessary to have any style guideline for this on Knowledge, since the dictionary says both are acceptable. However, if any guideline is to be adopted, the one recommended by

2434:

said, when used more broadly, to not be directly referring to the Bible at all. None of the other scriptures mentioned have such a high reputation that their names have been used in this less accurate way yet. As a specific example, I remember having heard

2713:

unaware of any efforts to remove the capitalization. The specific subject of the discussion below is the adjectival "biblical". And, yes, the capitalization of other adjectival forms of the names of religious texts has been considered in the discussion.

2461:"bible" that does not refer to the book title and does not always need to be capitalized, like "This book is the bible of auto mechanics"... Hopefully, there is no disagreement that Bible is better than bible when referring to the actual title as a noun. 924:(reset indent)I had to laugh when I read the line, "some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like." Yeah, that definitely qualifies as real-world activity. :) But overall I think you've got the basics of a fine standard for separate articles. 6786:

and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found

2365:

Since a 3O was requested, I'll provide one even though you're also going to open an RFC. In my opinion, since modern usage (including the MLA - I couldn't find an actual link to their style suggestion, but their own website uses the lowercase format

6180:'), then just quote that, but if its about a translation controversy (or on a subject where the translation is controversial) - eg. 'presbyter' verses 'priest', then list all significant variations (only one translation each would be necessary). 3771:

You are quite right Diego, and if I have learned anything from all this, it is to be tolerant of the little b, which previously I had mistakenly thought to be just an ignorant typo and error whenever I saw it, since I was more used to the big B.

1444:

Where is the prejudice? Whether I call something Biblical or biblical, the content of the statement does not change. Whether I refer to a man as Black or black, the content doesn't change. Please provide evidence that capital B is more prevalent

1046:

for example you want to know more about the third chapter of Ruth. That would be a page. Every page would have verifiable sources. Would this be a good idea for a project? If so, what would the index page be? Would this be a category page?

5245:

I think this is unacceptable. Knowledge is supposed to be NPOV, covering all angles in an informational scholarly way. In particular, as is clear from the redirects, this is supposed to be the article on the first five books of the Bible for

1406:

is not disrespectful to the content of the Bible, it is simply a convention of language. Also, if you really believe this is a grave injustice, take up the issue with the style manuals, the Associated Press and the millions of people who write

1466:), I mean "how is the world actually spelled in the majority of recent publications?" If this were really a "grave injustice", why are you the first person to take issue with it so strenuously? Where is the Christian lobby demanding a capital 3312:, and APA in terms of influence? For example, I have never been asked to submit an article or report in "Athabascan University Style" or according to the "Bret Harte High School Editing Guide". These examples seem like a stretch. But they 4591: 612:

are comparatively minor. Both effectively cover the same basic subjects and content, just from different perspectives. Also, at least it seems to me, that neither project is particularly active. (I could be wrong here, of course). Maybe

6053:

If the version is pertinent to the interpretation, in the context of the article's reference to the text, then give one example of each pertinent variation. For example, on an article about homosexuality and leviticus 18/21, you have:

5308: 3522:

Such a minor point we are discussing! But has "political" implications concerning the status of the Christian Bible and therefore concerning a common Christian hegemonistic view of the world – implications that can be read either way,

450: 4172:"let's use our strength in numbers to make an example of this editor and pillory him with derision for expressing his opinion, to intimidate future editors from speaking up", otherwise known as "bullying", a poor substitute for logic. 509:

contains this disclaimer: "Ships that figure in traditional stories or legends. See Category:Mythology for the correct meaning of "mythological" in this context." This seems reasonable to me. The USS Constitution is in there as well.

6183:

And don't limit this to just variations between modern English Translations. Other languages translations may have significant variations too (the difference being obscured by the fact they are in other languages). And even though

2537:

the exact opposite. As I have said, there are a number of sources and authorities out there that admit "Biblical" right alongside "biblical", and common sense would hopefully suggest whether it is being used commonly or properly.

7049: 7033: 3920:

Just out of curiosity, with the exception of the governmental guides, how many of these does anyone think have real acceptance in the larger community? Also, please note that there is now an existing discussion on this subject at

1948:

Theology Today – Journal published by Princeton Theological Seminary devoted to Christian theology. Submission guidelines specifically direct authors not to capitalize biblical (or godly, scriptural, etc.). Also refers authors to

5264:

rewriting the section "Torah and Islam", which is meant at least to kick off with a discussion on the Islamic perspective on the Torah, changing it into in effect a discussion of a Jewish perspective of an Islamic perspective on

3988:

I think it's great people have compromised here. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's more important that a decision is made, than what the decision actually is. It's all about going forward together. And we did it! Woohoo!

1787:

True, but looking over the first few pages of results does not show anywhere near as many hits for "biblical" even when used in the middle of a sentence, what method were you using when you claimed it showed the exact opposite?

250:

where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.

7015: 3484:). So I think it's pretty well established that both are acceptable, even if one is more widely used. So should there really be any rule excluding one or the other? If one simply wants to attain a degree of consistency, 1126:

covers just a few verses at the beginning of John. The only thing that covers things on chapter-by-chapter principles is a commentary; but this is an encyclopedia - it should be about subjects, topics, etc. Imagine if the

6175:

Essentially you'd have to show a fair sample of the translations, rather than just picking the one that suits your opinion best. If the article is talking about a specific occasion where one translation has an issue (eg.

1735:

that isn't apparent on the surface). Whether we're talking about "Christianity" or the "Bible", I still don't see any evidence of "prejudice" or "grave injustice". Again, all you have to do is provide some evidence that

3430:, in the entry "higher criticism"). Is this still the case in current editions of AH dictionaries? I haven't got Random House. What is the precise wording in its entry? So far where only one alternative is given, it is 6892: 6870: 5915:

What about Ishbaal ('man of baal') - do you list it as that (which appears in some places in the Bible) or as the POV-but-biblical 'Ishbosheth' ('man of the shameful one'), which appears in physically earlier places?

2845:, and I see no reason to flout it.) However, "Biblical Hebrew" should be still capitalized in its use as a synonym for "Classical Hebrew", as this is a proper noun, in the same way as we capitalize "Modern English". — 1628:

no vocal lobby on this issue because it is not that important. Here in the U.S., there is a vocal "Christian lobby" (e.g., Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, etc) and the capitalization of

1402:? Just curious. There are plenty of proper adjectives that are not capitalized. Where is the "grave injustice" here? This is just spelling. Capital letters are not an indication of inherent respect. Not capitalizing 1326:. I noticed your spelling of "capitalisation" on the heading, and I'm wondering if this is yet another British vs. American spelling difference. Either way, don't go randomly changing from one to the other. Thanks — 5348: 2613:. Should Knowledge adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should 2275:. Should Knowledge adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should 1140: 1136: 1132: 268:

least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you.

4986:, considered by many scholars to be the earliest of the prophetic books, and according to many scholars likely to be earlier than any of the books of the Torah as we now have them; nor any of the other prophets. 800:

He mainly decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the maths and geometry of the Great Pyramid model , and also astronomical and astrological realities.

3359:

at the top of this section above seems to make the most sense and to be grammatically correct, i.e. use lower case when the word is used as a common adjective and upper case when used as a proper adjective. --

1685: 6587:

is a great article on the subject, but modern Christianity is multifaceted. It would be nice to be able to reference all the various points of view on this topic. Could this be an aspect of the descendants of

4460:

I just undid a cut-and-paste move from the first to the second title. However, looking at the Bible Gateway site, all of the English translations they have uses the second spelling. Does anyone see any reason

4383: 1118:

about the chapters themselves would be a fork of these articles. It is also a very bad way to lay out an encyclopedia - articles should be about subjects, not arbitrary divisions of the text. For example, the

976: 5676:, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with 563:) links to a site (maintained by a wikipedia editor) where users can select which version of the bible they wish to read the verse in; since its maintained by a wikipedia editor, its much more comprehensive. 6896: 6876: 5083:

which seems to indicate that at least a few people think it refers to something else. I've always favored the first option above myself though. I however am a Chrsitian and it might be useful to contact the

525:

Not any more. I notice its getting rv'd out of that article and all the other historical ships Csernica added it to, because people take mythological ships to mean fictional ships. He's proving my point.

4387: 4312: 3154:

adjectives in English.) Also, while there may be some exceptions, numerous dictionaries and style authorities that find both "biblical" and "Biblical" to be acceptable forms, are not at all hard to find.

1495:

It is obvious prejudice to single out one book from all the books of the world and give it special treatment in this way, while continuing to write "Vedic", "Talmudic", etc. This is now being taken up at

176: 4636: 2679:

The effort to use the lower case 'b' is laudable in that Knowledge doesn't seek to promote a particular religion. But be mindful of the fact that this effort is only applied to Christianity normally, and

1833:

Discounting page titles and usage as the first-word in a sentence. Go through the first two pages and take a look at the documents. Also, try a Google News search. It should weed out bad unrepresentative

5508:

who insist on declaring the Bible a myth, no question, will not listen to any reason. I am asking for admin help as I fear this serious neutrality violation can only be solved by an arb com decision.

5332: 4062:

PS Chicago MS first pub 1906. OED first pub 1928 (though A came out in 1888). Contemporaries unless we want to split straws, I don't, so who ever wants to argue about it can win, I surrender in advance.

471: 5849: 2369:) clearly supports "biblical", I'd suggest that become the preferred usage if a guideline is added to the MOS. I'm not going to suggest that Knowledge go contrary to the Chicago Manual, the APA, MLA, 6938:. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. 3216:

Just now found another style guide with the example "Biblical" here, but I'm not sure how much weight a "gay writing style guide" would carry for our purposes; still, it is evidence you asked for...:

5079:

and my own previous acquaintance with the subject, I've always gotten the impression "this Book of the Law" is supposed to refer to Deuteronomy itself. However, there is at least one academic source

5030:

It seems to me that, at a minimum, Knowledge should be aspiring to give at least the level of detail of these articles. Our current coverage, especially for the Hebrew Bible, falls very far short.

6355:, which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the 4608: 4234:"Biblical" technically just means "book-related", so technically, it should be uncapitalised. In french, for example, "biblio" refers to books in general (eg. "bibliobus" is just a mobile library). 5661:. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at 3629:

I note that you have stated elsewhere that this page has become, to paraphrase, a full-blown argument, and yet the only person on this page who seems to be not only regularly casting aspersions on

2222:

is for, when there is an impasse between two editors, to avoid making that claim, because we want a consensus, so now that i have listed this page there, we should be able to get more voices soon.

1575:

by Knowledge standards. Generally, when disputes arise, general usage as determined by the MLA, AP, and various style guides usually wins out (although the recent Burma/Myanmar debate on Knowledge

223:

trend of using a particular commercial source, and more importantly, using different templates that promote particular versions, etc? Raising the issue here rather than del-listing the templates. -

6101:, with uncertainties indicated; note that its 'esh' that means 'man', while 'zakar' can translate as 'pointed' - in the sense of 'having a penis' - but may have additional religious connotations) 1603:

in actual current usage. This is an encyclopedia, and "academic" sources are generally considered important, whether in the form of usage and style guides or actual primary and secondary sources.

6543:

This is an open call for anyone interesting in building up the collection of individual Psalms articles. There's a lot of work to be done but I think every one is notable for their own article.

6757: 1587:). The point is, despite any seeming inconsistencies, Knowledge should not be the exception and should follow the same guidelines as other published sources (If Knowledge chooses to capitalize 788: 463: 989: 762:

It was in fact already merged. And it didn't deal with "criticism" of the bible in the sense of being critical of it, but rather "biblical criticism" in the sense of commentary and the like.

5930: 3250:

I'm back on the job of looking for style guides that recommend 'Biblical' over 'biblical' now; here's another example I just now found, the style guide of the US Government Printing Office:

2099:(in reference to the Bible) being treated "as common for no given reason whatsoever"; there is a reason. The reason is "these popular sources and authoritative style guides specifically use 6888: 6860: 5878: 5434: 5405: 3072:

guides, that would look like bias. I think you do need to let this go Til. When you can not accept strong evidence against your proposal, it starts to seem like you have a personal agenda.

5454: 813: 5060:

I'm looking for an article to describe this document which is mentioned in Deu 29:21. Trying to look up the term on Knowledge only yields a Thelemic and a Mormon text which aren't it. __

6629: 5162:. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. 4597: 2777: 1344:

and academics hold for the Bible alone, as opposed to the Koran, Talmud and Veda, to supposedly make "biblical" the only proper adjective in the entire language NOT to be capitalised.

1162: 5429: 4996:, despite its name quite a responsible and solidly researched column from a Chicago newspaper. Even at quite an informal and cursory level, the treatment still runs to five articles: 1571:

English-speaking Western nations. It is not the job of Knowledge to dictate usage based on a perception of fairness, when that usage is not widely supported in sources that are deemed

5290:

There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at

4341: 1591:

when most other sources do not, it will indeed be the exception). As I have said above, this is a usage and style issue. If you want your argument to be heard, please support it with

5683:

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at

2632: 1068: 2786:

for reasons stated above. It seems to be the form overwhelmingly preferred by academic style guides (including the Society of Biblical Literature), print journalism (including the

1207:

with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July. I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored.

7058: 6880:

has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

5151: 5144: 4365: 5593:

Yahweh's just the modern majority consideration of the likely vowel completion for 'YHWH', while it was earlier scholarship that had it as 'Jehovah'. I can't see why that is POV.

5778: 5170: 6292: 6026:

One important issue that is not religious in nature is the use of quotations from copyrighted translations, which should be minimised, and specifically the UK copyright of the

1310:

article for examples). Also, the OED is not a style guide, it is a dictionary. Whether or not you agree with the rationale, its important to be consistent, hence the lowercase

6274: 819:

No. That seems to be a self-published source. It doesn't look too notable either. Perhaps the people in the pseudohistory wikiproject (if there is one) might be interested? --

681:

writing for experts, we're writing for the general public, so articles written for the people, by the people seems ideal, and the whole point of Wiki. Please come and help us!

499: 5695: 6641: 5835:, a sourced analysis of Mt 10:16-23, and believe it to be under the scope of this wikiproject. If members agree, please be so kind as to add it to your wikiproject. Thanks! 4480: 2718: 2405:

So, Veda gets to have Vedic, Quran gets Quranic, Talmud gets Talmudic, but the accompanying adjective to describe the Bible has to be "biblical", "just because WE say so"???

4255:

Was a former Featured Article, but poorly referenced. Badly in need of in-line citations and a broader base of references. Anyone willing to tackle the article, maybe as a

2589: 6837: 6717: 5417: 3438:

is listed – but only as a second choice. This is understandable and correct practice, in some views of lexicography: report usage, don't prescribe it. But the support for

5309: 1727:

capitalized at the beginning of a sentence (and on web page titles), so in this case Google isn't particularly helpful unless you comb through the actual articles. Also,

6982: 6966: 6952: 6619: 5638: 5128:, we at the Knowledge 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at 3963: 3954: 3929: 3776: 3664: 3641: 3062: 3052: 3017: 2551: 2513: 2503: 1296:

see that "Biblical" has always been more common than "biblical" according to the OED, notwithstanding what a few recent style guides like Chicago may attempt to impose.

301: 6280: 3915: 3684: 3651: 3344: 2541: 2226: 2160: 1435: 476: 6239: 5909:

Is 'Reuel' another name for 'Jethro', itself being another name for 'Hobab', who may have a father named 'Reuel' , or are these actually different people in some way?

5517: 5500: 4804: 4176: 2989:

arguments above, it seems like only one editor actually cares and is refusing to acknowledge the valid opinions (and evidence) of others. Anyway, that's my two cents.

1528: 1300: 1288: 330: 183: 4484: 722: 713: 7019: 5764: 5470: 3117: 3107: 3103: 3086: 3076: 3007: 2567: 937: 912: 902: 880: 870: 6800: 5485: 4816: 2804:) regarding spelling (i.e., be consistent within an article, don't change from one to the other without a good reason, American subject=American spelling, etc.). — 4892: 4476: 4391: 3960: 3926: 3755: 3661: 3638: 3059: 3014: 2820: 2714: 2577:

The RFCxxx templates below had no space between 'RFC:' and '"biblical"', this caused an incorrect link to be created in the RFCxxx lists. This has been corrected.

2548: 2510: 2440: 1876: 1059: 909: 877: 859: 856: 619: 170: 5013:

Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) and the wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) in the Old Testament?

2751: 2737: 2722: 2443: 636: 6675: 6661: 5946: 4732: 4650:

and the like. Would articles relating to these books, whose status as "biblical" is disputed by some, be included or not? I am operating on the assumption that

3172:, rather than simply acknowledge that both are acceptable? This could be helpful considering the reliable sources listed above which clearly use and/or endorse 2428: 2415: 1062: 781: 692: 197:, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to 6774: 6556: 5990: 5743: 5377: 4716: 4226: 3894: 3547: 3456: 3405: 971: 934: 535: 516: 5023:

Who decided which books should be included and which excluded from the Bible(s)? Why are there differences in the Bibles for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews?

4564: 4135: 4030: 3758: 2823: 1879: 928: 6363:

to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Knowledge:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at

5898:. You might find most translations give 'Manasseh', but these derive from the 'MNShSh' in the Masoretic text, where the N is very unusually inserted (with a 5677: 5197: 5050: 3748: 3594: 3324: 3291: 3273: 3256: 3239: 3222: 3205: 3188: 3132: 2351: 2326: 2318:

If this works for (or if you don't respond) I'll go ahead and post the RFC. I think an RFC will provide plenty of opinions to help reach consensus. Thanks —

2144: 2115:

should not be capitalized. However, all we need to concern ourselves with here is actual usage, not the reason behind the usage. For example, does it matter

2078: 1792: 1752: 1694: 1654: 1504: 1482: 1419: 1348: 1334: 736:

Its a bit late to mention it, but I think its a good suggestion; the alternative was to make it part of the Anti-Systemic-Bias (in Knowledge) WikiProject. --

277: 3537: 3492: 3392: 2983: 2742:"Qur'anic" is a word not used infrequently. I would submit it for parallel consideration. I'm more interested in consistency than upon the 'right' decision. 2626: 2057: 1152: 1082: 5632: 5586: 4386:

for deletion, as I don't think it meets the criteria for wikipedia articles. I would however welcome input from any interests parties in the discussion at

4263: 3073: 2990: 825: 810: 6530: 6512: 5844: 2993: 1173: 1009: 982: 272: 5820: 5793: 2772: 1524:

linguistic exceptions in style for just one proper adjective that almost seems like it has been singled out from among all proper adjectives in English.

925: 899: 867: 665: 306: 294: 5371: 4881: 4678: 4282: 6816: 6696: 5902:), suggesting to scholars that it originally read 'MShSh', which is Moses. So is that Manasseh some new individual, to be added to your list, or is it 5125: 5111: 5097: 4797: 4791: 4771: 4752: 3922: 3740:

in the same article. How would you suggest we handle such situations? By the way, thanks for taking the time to investigate this issue, John Carter. —

3488:'s proposed solution seems reasonable. To my admittedly uninvolved eye this looks like a tempest in a teacup. Am I missing something deeper here? -- 2948: 2706: 1566:

injustice". For example, personal pronouns are generally not capitalized, but in many Bible translations (even modern ones), pronouns referring to God

1110: 6000: 4663: 2812: 1731:

should clearly be capitalized, so adding that issue simply muddies this debate (you also seem to be attributing some sort of motivation to the use of

836:

First, we should have a newsletter. Second, we should put the NIV on here or Wikisource. I'll ask over there. Please respond to this on my talk page.

5388: 4868:. At the moment, there are only two participants in the discussion, so it would be helpful if some folk here could have a look at this, and join the 4121:, or what you will. But where there is a strong tide of common usage it should, in the end, govern such matters. At the moment common usage has only 2673: 6474: 5261:

removing any mention of "Pentateuch" and "Five Books of Moses" from the Lead, when there are extensive links to the article under those titles; and

2928: 1050: 445: 6538: 6441: 4940: 3382:

alone, and not the capitalised form." Some of these are the most comprehensive and widely respected dictionaries of English, for what that's worth.

1274: 6521:

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix.

3825:

If consensus ends up opting to enforce lowercase in all situations for the adjectival form of "Bible", it will have to be made clear in some way:

2959: 2858: 7054: 6268: 6228: 5129: 5119: 4394: 598: 352: 6947: 5804: 4096:

Am I condemned, Cassandra-like, to wail my truths stridently and often in the byways and wastelands of Knowledge, and none will heed? Of course

1211: 255: 7002: 6348: 5400: 4578: 4330: 622: 323: 231: 6917: 5291: 5069: 576: 6743: 6720: 6666:

All the ones I've recently created are of the kind you suggested. It might be a bit of a problem to try to change the existing ones, though.

6410: 5969: 5714: 5140:

represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.

4624: 3519:

choice) are being descriptive – they are not offering a guideline. And they are certainly not lending support to the proposal that Til makes.

2650: 1067:

There is an ongoing discussion on whether individual chapters of the bible are in general notable and should have individual WP articles at

7010: 5738: 4469: 4444: 3908:

seems to make it optional: "If you find that lowercasing it in your writing results in ambiguity, however, then by all means uppercase it."

421: 7029: 5769: 4683: 4353: 2424:

Citing the major style guides, plus the Society of Biblical Literature, is hardly "picking and choosing our 'authorities'". Be reasonable.

2014:- leading style guide used in Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Published by the Society of Biblical Literature) 756: 6048: 5303: 4055:

such unwelcome imigrants. Not for them the privelege granted to successful industrialists, honoured by, "give me half-an-hour I've got to

3511:

existing usage is unclear, it is folly to push against firmly established usage. As I have pointed out, those few dictionaries that allow

5995: 5352: 4490: 3806: 851: 845: 326:

have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

4908: 4586: 1269: 1252: 840: 553: 6612: 5163: 4847: 4738: 4348: 4273:

seems to be a fairly decent account of the history of the translation. I'd like to know more about the 47 translators from the C of E.

4256: 3866: 1690:" You will find this convention is nearly always adhered to by authors in detemining whether 'Quixotic' is a proper or a common noun. 6769: 6042:) and I believe it would be beneficial to use this Wikisource resource rather than having many translations on the Knowledge article. 5323:

in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, --

4160: 4070: 3993: 3284:

Here's one last style guide featuring use of "Biblical" that I just turned up, I think I'll take another break from searching for now:

1723:

Plain Google searches don't ditinguish between capital and lowercase. So unless you've combed through the 47,000,000 hits... Also, it

209: 6487: 6430: 4852: 4835: 4345: 3800: 247: 4243: 3158: 804:

I suggested to put in your linktopics a link to my translations website above for : sacred geometry (talk page) pyramid (talk page)

742: 7065: 5974: 5798: 5705:

Is the Koran a bible? Is the Book of Morman a part of a bible? How do you define the word bible within the scope of this project?

4617: 4372: 4307: 3434:(in those dictionaries I list that have most kudos in the world of publishing, like OED and M-W Collegiate). In some other sources 609: 4935: 4743:... in Knowledge. I would especially like to link to that specific bible passage. Is there a standard way to do this? Thanks. 3946:

Er, the last discussion there was two days ago, and only one person commented, making it clear his view that the relevant page is

2386: 2357: 1867:

I don't think that this would ever rise to the level of "policy" as said above, but could be perhaps addressed on the appropriate

7062: 4919: 4695:

within the scope of your WikiProject. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at

4369: 4105:

alone gets lower-cased, does it not signal a salient and automatic cultural acceptance of the Bible, akin to the Islamic world's

3364: 3113:

And I suppose writing "Til is a douche" in your edit summary just now, is not a personal attack at all, according to you, right?

3037: 649: 452: 6454: 1684:(1794), Susanna Rowson works to de-politicise her play , instead positioning her piece within the realm of Quixotic literature." 399: 6414: 5646:

is a collection of English Knowledge articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The

4168: 3909: 3148: 2030:- The de facto standard for academic publications in the social sciences (published by the American Psychological Association). 1040: 505:

While the anonymous user who is pushing this topic does seem to be very much out of line, I think that it should be noted that

260: 6233: 5003:

Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?

7084: 7079: 6840: 6731: 5826: 5726: 5666: 5410: 4413: 4317: 4248: 381: 6891:

for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the

5037:

needs to be massively expanded? And that, better, each of the five questions above deserves its own separate article; with

4646:

What is the exact scope of this project? My question is prompted by having recently seen articles relating to such books as

3033: 1875:. That would probably be the proper place to go to do try to include the capitalization of Biblical in the style guideline. 1641:

is not capitalized, so clearly not all Christians share your view that this is an indication of prejudice. I don't know why

5647: 5563: 5337: 5175: 4641: 5864:

can be regarded as a comprehensive 'master list' while each new list can be considered a more manageable 'sub-list.' The

5278: 1911:

unless using the word generically (e.g., "...is the bible of conspiracy theorists"). Despite another editor's belief that

7089: 6855: 5344: 5055: 4707:

unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --

3925:, and that might be the better place to make such comments about what are basically proposed to be changes to that page. 3099: 1903:, except in special circumstances (i.e., First word in sentence, part of title, part of a proper name , etc.). Note that 1394:

is not. I'm neither a linguist nor a high school English teacher. But it doesn't really matter why, it only matters what

5607:

that 'God of France' could be something entirely different, and that Israel never had any other God (such as a distinct

6934:

as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found

6922: 6608: 6352: 6344: 5315:

Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing

3401:

Then there's also American Heritage and Random House, two of the most widely published today, supporting 'Biblical'...

3123:

want - heck, let everyone spell it how they want. Why enforce something that is supposed to be about consensus anyways?

2586: 1633:

is not a pressing issue for them. And for what it's worth, I learned in junior high English class many years ago (in a

1179: 3701:

What you have suggested here seems reasonable. However, I would hope that you could also be tolerant of the lowercase

1158:

It transpires that this matter is more prevalent than I had initially thought. I have arranged an AfD on this matter:

6913: 6829: 6709: 6418: 6329: 777: 581:

No, its just that there is a wide range of quality and completeness in the articles about the various books. Compare

6874:

has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A

4153:, and other places where avoiding ambiguity or reader surprize may lead editors to judge a capital more expedient." 2403:"Hey, ol' man, how can you stand to think that way? Did you really think about it, before --YOU-- 'made' the Rules?" 6811: 6690: 6091:; note that 'toebah' has been translated as 'disgusting', even though its 'piggul' that translates as 'disgusting') 6033:

With regards to articles about bible verses, I am a big fan of removing Knowledge content which is within scope of

5725:

or is a very general term (including technical documentation about the character backgrounds in a soap opera). Try

5234: 3732:

and don't change from one to the other without good reason. However, it is definitely not a good idea to have both

376: 161: 113: 17: 6316:

subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering

4696: 6648:

avoiding such side-boxes and instead try to use simple footer templates? (See the good examples at the bottom of

6317: 5985: 4779: 3370:

Which is "the dictionary" you refer to here, Really Spooky? As I write above: "The recent or current editions of

3234: 2976: 1188:

has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to

661: 219: 2903:

alone, and not the capitalised form. Some of these dictionaries are the ones recommended by major style guides (

2756:

Bible is captialized. Why wouldn't biblical? Every other religous text is. Not capitalizing it wouldn't be NPOV.

2128:

is to turn to the sources deemed acceptable by Knowledge and the academic community and ask ourselves, "what do

1200: 6987: 6584: 6494: 6389: 6321: 2069:

But what I really want is for the guideline on this (okay, not a policy) to be nailed down in the MOS. If the

261: 214: 6111:, with uncertainties indicated; note that its 'andros' that means 'man', while 'arsenos' means '(the) virile') 5008:

Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various histories in the Old Testament (such as Judges, Kings, etc.)?

4869: 4758:

I came here looking for the same thing. Any guidance would be appreciated. I notice that there's nothing at

2038:- Style used by the AP and adopted by the majority of print journalists in the U.S. (with notable exceptions). 1934: 1306:

Sorry, Knowledge generally follows "recent" (i.e., first published in 1906)style guides like Chicago (see the

1192: 6364: 5952: 5504: 5241: 5085: 4270: 4249: 3285: 2373:

the Society of Biblical Literature by using a capital B when all of those style organizations suggest lower.

933:

OMG. If you investigate this it looks like there's a huge amount of articles like this. There's already been

572:

certain structure that we are suppose to use (and if so is there an example of it already in place)? Thanks.

566: 426: 335: 3718: 6845: 6333: 6088: 5559: 5376: 5319:

with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement

747:

I can see the connection to this project, but it looks more like a subproject of Anti-Systemic-Bias to me.

236: 43: 5240:, on the basis apparently that it should be "essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area". 4431:. I had a stab at tidying it up, but thought I'd send it over here as it seems to belong in the domain of 3378:, Chamber's, Collins, Macquarie, Longman, and Merriam-Webster Collegiate unabridged dictionaries all list 807:

Perhaps Your religion team like to see other references in articles or links in other wikepedia articles?

7016: 6683: 6151: 5919:

Is Jesus' step-paternal grandfather to be named 'Jacob' or 'Heli' or are they different people entirely?

4896: 4831: 4827: 4313: 4293: 3217: 2045:, which is the most commonly used style guide for scholarly work in the humanities (I don't have a copy). 1196: 1030: 1013: 506: 104: 68: 6739: 6624:

I want everyone to note that we weren't trying to step on anyone's toes here. Some of the people at the

4475:

The latter name looks more familiar, and seemingly is more frequent. So, I can't see any reason not to.

618:

assessments, when there are only such minor differences between the projects, might be avoided as well.

410: 6501:(I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. -- 5662: 5658: 5513: 5450: 4923: 4569: 4440: 831: 543: 531: 495: 441: 404: 5238: 4577:

could use some help tracking down missing citations to get ready for peer review. Thanks in advance.

4009:

and it would have confirmed Til's pre-formed view. Til seems not to have observed this qualification:

959: 956: 953: 6579: 6507: 6020: 6011:-like fashion. i.e. Topics about Judaism may be better served by using a preferred translation like 5684: 5643: 5481: 5384: 5269:

I don't know whether you would all agree with that take, but some more views would be very welcome.

5159: 5041:

changed to summary-style, to act as a central starting point and distributor to the other articles?

4523: 4377: 2347:

Yes, that RFC wording passes the muster for being a neutral description of the dispute... Thank you,

1688: 950: 6864:. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the 6400: 6120: 6105:

And with an 'arsenos' you shall not lie with in the marriage bed a wife/woman , for it is nauseous

6075:; note that the word 'homosexuality' is interpolated - its not translating anything in the original) 5887: 1058:

entire "storyline" or subplot, regardless of chapter markers, would probably be the best way to go.

362:

So, uh.. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, and I have no idea what this page is talking about:

6725: 6307: 6298: 6283:. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. 5840: 5710: 5700: 5283: 4449: 1101: 560: 6279:

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at

6069:

Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin

5569:

If you're talking about actual quotations, you clearly follow the translation you're quoting. The

4156:

At the moment the discussion is Til v the World. If he agreed to this we'd almost have consensus.

2637:

I trust that every opponent of the Bible being capitalized is working overtime to ensure that the

1361:

Knowledge has a guideline to maintain consistency within an article or related group of articles (

994: 112:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

7023: 6657: 6224: 5926: 5734: 5628: 5582: 5466: 5367: 5359: 4674: 4632: 4466: 4324: 4239: 3442:

must be admitted to be extremely weak, if we ourselves seek to make a prescriptive ruling. (That

2905: 2018: 1169: 1148: 967: 752: 603: 594: 395: 5316: 6604: 6435: 6072: 5979: 5865: 5861: 5856: 5425: 5396: 5328: 4886: 4821: 4728: 4712: 4560: 4519: 4278: 2582: 2107:. That is the most common usage in print, and Knowledge should follow suit by not capitalizing 1872: 1595:, not emotional appeals to fairness and neutrality. In this case, please provide evidence that 1411:. I repeat this is not a "Knowledge" issue. The article simply follows actual English usage. — 1245: 6735: 3268: 431:

There is a fierce controversy raging between mostly myself, and about three other editors, at

7038: 6909: 6824: 6765: 6704: 6694:

which I did a while ago, and it has not been rated by the WikiProject. I think it should be.

6671: 6637: 6325: 6288: 5942: 5874: 5688: 5509: 5446: 5299: 5093: 4904: 4812: 4659: 4436: 4418: 4173: 3951: 3912: 3863: 3773: 3681: 3656:

There are at present 9904 pages which use the word biblical capitalized and otherwise as per

3648: 3544: 3485: 3402: 3356: 3341: 3288: 3270: 3253: 3236: 3219: 3202: 3155: 3114: 3083: 3049: 3004: 2538: 2500: 2412: 2374: 2348: 2223: 2157: 2075: 1789: 1691: 1525: 1501: 1449:(not over the course of history -- that's not how style and usage decisions are made). Which 1432: 1345: 1297: 1285: 1216: 773: 527: 491: 437: 49: 3657: 2260:

That should generate a large response. Is the following RFC wording neutral enough for you?

1895:

For what it's worth, here is a list of reliable sources (both religious and otherwise) that

6748: 6596: 6561: 6502: 6197: 6039: 5816: 5477: 5228: 4931: 4865: 4843: 4592:

Are members of this project aware of the deletion debate on vast numbers of Bible chapters?

4287: 4260: 4157: 4067: 3990: 3095: 2980: 2944: 2921:, where the proper noun may automatically capitalise also the adjective that precedes it.– 2768: 2042: 765: 719: 710: 689: 372: 228: 6215:

Basically, don't quote if you don't have to. And if you need to refer to a verse, use the

5651: 4838:? I've tried, but don't know enough about the characters involved to do any more. Thanks, 4551:

are all often synonymous of the Holy anointing oil. Early Gnostic texts indicate that the

3199: 8: 6469: 6216: 6095:

And with a 'zakar' you shall not lay layings a woman, for it is ritually objectionable

5836: 5832: 5706: 5574: 5218: 4787: 4767: 3862:

other ones I found, like the US and Canadian government printing offices style guides.)

2087:

The other non-capitalised proper adjectives were not really the point. The point is that

1119: 657: 432: 242: 198: 5416:

Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at

5310:

WT:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious views

6653: 6552: 6426: 6220: 6141: 5922: 5760: 5730: 5624: 5578: 5462: 5363: 5080: 4877: 4670: 4628: 4544: 4531: 4511: 4499: 4491: 4409: 4361: 4302: 4235: 4208:

Sure, that's common sense. Sometimes there will be exceptions. But we're looking for a

3489: 3361: 3251: 3128: 2792: 2747: 2733: 2702: 2382: 1165: 1144: 1108: 1020: 963: 748: 590: 391: 349: 327: 298: 269: 252: 206: 194: 188: 5600:

seems more POV to me, as its expressing a view about significance/dominance/ownership.

4613:

Following the suggestion of several comments there, this is now a proposed guideline:

4003:

Thank you, your comments have confirmed to me exactly what I was suspecting all along.

3022:

Sure, did you miss these other editors whose comments about this I totally agree with:

1199:, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research. Please 7006: 6978: 6962: 6943: 6796: 6600: 6375:

to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome

6259: 5937:

controversies like the ones you mentioned could be addressed in individual articles.-

5692: 5421: 5392: 5324: 5189: 5147:, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects. 4992: 4913: 4861: 4854: 4724: 4708: 4699:, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on 4604: 4582: 4556: 4515: 4428: 4338: 4296:

for a query concerning conflicting/proper sourcing, on this unusual topic. Thanks. --

4274: 4223: 4132: 4027: 3891: 3534: 3474: 3453: 3389: 2972: 2925: 2578: 1266: 1257:

Discussion has proceeded and proposals have been made to restructure and rewrite the

1249: 944: 345: 202: 6481:(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles ( 5665:. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at 5088:

and ask the members there if there are different ideas within the Jewish community.

4113:

central scriptures? I would prefer to see all those adjectives lower-cased, myself:

6935: 6905: 6901: 6761: 6667: 6633: 6482: 6376: 6284: 6201: 6158:...the night-demon Lilith, evil and rapacious, will establish permanent quarters... 6008: 5938: 5870: 5789: 5752: 5744: 5553: 5441: 5295: 5284: 5274: 5089: 5046: 5038: 5034: 5022: 5017: 5012: 5007: 5002: 4949: 4941: 4900: 4808: 4748: 4692: 4655: 4503: 4059:

the carpet," or to war heros like, "you've got me in a full nelson with that one!"

2801: 2787: 1280: 1123: 821: 769: 738: 418: 193:

I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of

160:

The regular archiving is not affected. The talk page and the archives can be found

6015:, and Christian topics may be better served by using a preferred translation like 5673: 3482: 3267:

And here's one more: The style guide published by Canada's Athabascan University:

1947: 1930:

Biblica – Scholarly journal published by the Pontifical Research institute in Rome

1386:). These are not all errors, that is just the way it is spelled. I don't know why 6988: 6865: 6649: 6544: 5812: 5570: 5224: 4927: 4839: 4432: 3634: 3588: 2940: 2852: 2797: 2764: 2668: 2119: 1868: 1497: 1453:

style guides (not dictionaries, which do not prescribe usage)recommend a capital

1362: 1237: 1097: 986: 646:

If anyone's really against it, maybe BibCrit could be made a task force of Bible

573: 367: 363: 319: 315: 224: 5784:

and comment on whether the page should be moved back to article space. Thanks. -

3633:

those who disagree with him, and claiming that they are opposed by some sort of

793: 6788: 6464: 6394: 6313: 6189: 6098: 5855:

them), at least for the books this makes sense for. I know there is already a

5542: 5533: 5527: 5320: 5107: 5065: 4979: 4964: 4783: 4763: 4574: 4399: 4056: 3478: 2642: 1026: 996: 941: 895: 653: 582: 414: 366:. It sounds a bit made-up to me, but is there any redeemable material there? -- 3959:

Please note that discussion has begun on the talk page of that page, as well.

3807:

MOS:CAPS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents

1474:? I imagine they have more important things to feel insulted about. Thanks. — 688:

for all sorts of reasons, including those proposed by John, Vassyana and Tim.

7073: 6548: 6526: 6450: 6422: 6384: 5958: 5756: 5719:

Bible with a capital B. This is not the french Knowledge; Bible either means

5615: 5538: 5406: 5202: 5102:

I appreciate your answer and I have also asked at the Judaism WikiProject. __

4975: 4873: 4759: 4424: 4405: 4388:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations

4357: 4297: 4013:

Nor does Til seem to have taken much notice of the way I rounded things off:

3124: 2743: 2729: 2698: 2646: 2609:

are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun

2425: 2378: 2271:

are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun

1189: 1105: 1078: 633: 341: 282: 180: 150: 6007:

various situations, even if it means we need to define our differences in a

156:

This is a backup of the talk page at the time of the project page overhaul.

6974: 6958: 6939: 6851: 6792: 6749: 6575: 6571: 6249: 6177: 6169: 6062: 5179: 4983: 4600: 2395:"a number of Vedic, Talmudic, Koranic and biblical scholars were consulted" 2358: 2219: 2218:"Unfortunately for me, no one else seems to care" but that exactly is what 2034: 1925:

Merriam Webster Dictionary – the preeminent dictionary of American English.

1572: 1233: 1208: 1204: 1128: 1047: 837: 550: 512: 468: 357: 96: 6493:

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of

5383:

I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Knowledge's

3876:

Not so, Til. See my list of the major English dictionaries that list only

2179:

I am not pontificating, I simply listed authorities in the field that use

6805: 6625: 6406: 6372: 6161: 6044: 5785: 5680:, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 5549: 5270: 5042: 4744: 4647: 4548: 4334: 3714: 3164:

Can you provide evidence of any style guides that specifically recommend

2839: 2627:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Bible#Specific policy needed on capitalisation

1924: 1185: 1093: 983:

Talk:Circumcision in the Bible#Proposed move to Circumcision and religion

486: 478: 241:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

6791:. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. 5076: 4404:

Samson has been nominated for Good Article Review reviews are welcomed--

4066:

Sleep on it, we want to be friends again by next week. Cheers everyone.

4039:

that is more or less "put downs" of those who might hold that position.

1995:

as a non-capitalized word or direct writers to use the first example in

1935:

Journal of Biblical Lierature – author’s submission guidelines (follows

6108: 6034: 5214: 4527: 3837:

should be capitalized. However, note that while the adjectival form of

3742: 3582: 3318: 3182: 2956: 2846: 2806: 2658: 2320: 2138: 2051: 2022:- Widely used American style guide for academic and trade publications. 1746: 1648: 1476: 1463: 1413: 1328: 1262: 1225: 977:

Proposed move of Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion

608:

It seems to me that this differences in scope between this project and

464:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

6297: 4530:

claimed historical evidence and etymological comparison show that the

3705:. Remember that this whole thing started when you arbitrarily changed 1929: 340:

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the

6782:

I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of

6497:, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at 6281:

Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization

6079:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

5962: 5143:

The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of

5103: 5061: 5018:

Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various New Testament Books?

2478:

Should the style guide spell it out? "The corresponding adjective of

2435: 2026: 1980: 947: 586: 3805:

Here is the relevant section of the MOS, where the outcome will go:

3728:, but that will only work if you are also tolerant of the lowercase 2367: 1966: 7042: 6895:. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the 6630:

Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates

6522: 6446: 6193: 6001:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Bible#How do I properly quote the bible?

5850:

Lists of individuals and groups mentioned in each book of the Bible

5608: 4700: 4598:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles

4454: 3947: 2654: 2377:

do not address the issue in the Third Edition (the copy I have). --

1984: 1163:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles

1073: 5991:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religious texts#Bible version to quote?

5912:

Jehoiachin (YH+YH+ChN), Jeconiah (YH+ChN+YH), or Coniah (ChN+YH)?

5418:

WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Community RFC on proposed guideline

6931: 6924: 6589: 6205: 6168:

Some mention Lilith, a demon which Jewish legend considers to be

6012: 4960: 4651: 4540: 4535: 4450: 2638: 1069:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination)

6460:

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—

6059:

Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin

2913:

as its adjunct); and all major style guides agree in preferring

2819:"Bible", which can reasonably be capitalized, is used directly. 7045: 7036:

are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.

7020:

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --: -->

6567: 6135: 5805:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style#Roman numerals in Bible citation

5620: 5358:

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at

5158:

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at

5150:

A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as

4971: 4552: 4507: 4321: 4212:, not an exception! Let that rule be the broadly accepted one. 4185:

No one really wants to use unfair tactics here, Til. No one is

789:

Bible-Sacred Geometry-Cheops Pyramid-Ark of Covenant -Astronomy

3233:

A-ha, here is the clearest example of such a style guide yet:

2573: 709:

PS hmmm, I also propose an archive of some of this talk page.

490:

with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition.

6783: 6776: 6498: 5903: 5899: 5721: 5210: 5203: 2662: 1307: 1258: 1241: 1229: 1217: 311: 289: 278: 109: 6267:

on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at

5965:

and articles about Bible verses. I've found the following:

5292:

Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources..."

4078:

Actually, there's probably a case to be put that lower case

4042:

Actually, there's probably a case to be put that lower case

2494:; however the corresponding adjective when referring to the 1961: 1378:. A quick Google search will reveal millions of examples of 6413:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 6172:'s first wife (before Eve), while others don't mention it. 5351:, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place 4704: 3881: 3375: 3287:(It's not immediately clear to me who publishes this one). 2875: 1967:

Christianity Today – Leading evangelical Christian magazine

1962:

Beliefnet – Large site devoted to spirituality and religion

684:

Anyway, after that word from the sponsor, back on topic. I

5501:

User:Til_Eulenspiegel/Religious_narratives_as_sacred_canon

4990:

In comparison, consider this series of articles from from

4805:

Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1

2979:

and many others vote for SBL. I, personally, do not vote.

1971: 6219:

template, rather than linking to one particular version.

6027: 6016: 5906:

who definitely is listed as having a 'Gershom' as a son.

5603:

Similarly 'God of Israel' has issues as well, since that

3371: 2869: 5611:, for which it fought ), which is very definitely a POV. 3201:(This is the Canadian Council of Archives style manual) 3082:

have to appeal it all the way. Thanks, 70.239.93.159!

1997:

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

1624:

Regarding the "Christian lobby": my point is that there

108:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 6488:

Knowledge:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems

6085:

It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man

4895:. It can be found with all the drop-downs displayed at 4465:

to move it back to the second spelling, but properly?--

1549:

Til Eulenspiegel, I completely agree that capitalizing

6275:

Discussion regarding Christianity project organization

5996:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Bible#Unified Presentation?

5883:

You do realise how absolutely huge that list will be?

4891:

I have created a new version of the project banner at

2955:

Lowercase usage for this adjective would be better. —

2132:

do?" In this case it is clear: they do not capitalize

1987:- Large publishers of Bibles and Christian literature. 1261:

article. Please provide input into this discussion at

295:

Knowledge:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus

80: 62: 3923:

Knowledge talk:Proper names#"biblical" or "Biblical"?

797:

and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model.

5347:

for details. More than 150 projects and work groups

4926:? Does the workgroup really need a separate banner? 4005:

But it seems to me that I could have written almost

2672:

that Knowledge includes within it (Please check out

86: 6953:

How do I enter my name in the list of participants?

6620:

Proposed new navigation boxes for Biblical material

5639:

Knowledge 0.7 articles have been selected for Bible

5435:

Is it neutral to describe the Bible as "mythology"?

3950:, which, as is, he feels, supports capitalization. 2686:

never mind the fact that this treatment is negative

1583:was favored over the overwhelming current usage of 6192:, you should still consider the Septuagint/Syriac 5166:is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 4094:...implications that can be read either way, note. 4020:Why do we bother? The conversation becomes futile. 4011:...implications that can be read either way, note. 4001:Til writes above, concerning some of my analysis: 2682:is in effect giving Christianity special treatment 1579:an exception, in which historical predominance of 5532:Is there a policy regarding the rendering of the 5389:Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30 7071: 6900:with a particular article, please contact me or 6887:If any members are interested, please visit the 6850:This message is being sent to WikiProjects with 6238:Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new 4216:is the only likely consensus here, as I read it. 4203:. But at the very end it makes this concession: 171:vote for Moses to become a featured article vote 7024:_Catholic_Church-2009-06-13T12:02:00.000Z": --> 7017:_Catholic_Church-2009-06-13T12:02:00.000Z": --> 6351:. We are also in the process of implementing a 5652:automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 4125:lower-cased. It is written – almost everywhere. 4092:time my own ever-so-even-handed qualification: 2841:The Columbia Guide to Standard American English 2790:and evangelical Christian publications such as 1141:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 3 1137:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 2 1133:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 1 2499:there is something terribly wrong and biased. 589:, which is essentially just a content summary. 6904:and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! 6814:article needs ratings from this wikiproject. 6148:...the night monster also shall rest there... 5970:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style 5803:Members of this project may be interested in 4384:Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations 3724:. Of course I can be tolerant of the capital 3506:.) The important question is obviously this: 2692:the naming conventions of English literature. 794:http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html 324:Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an 5779:Wikipedia_talk:Bible_citation#Requested_move 4435:. Alert me on my talk page if you disagree. 3473:The dictionary definitions I looked at were 2834:. (My personal preference would actually be 179:so as too get Moses into a featured article 6688:Just to say I've created an article called 6128:...the screech owl also shall rest there... 5674:list of selected articles with cleanup tags 2695:If you're going to do this, be consistent. 852:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Psalm 83:18 307:Articles tagged as needing expert attention 177:Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Moses 4798:Christianity project coordinators election 4697:Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article 4382:I am nominating the newly created article 6775:GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of 6734:. If someone wants to help, please edit. 4555:is essential to becoming a "Christian." " 4539:passage" into the Kingdom of Heaven. The 4109:being taken as an automatic reference to 2625:To read the debate up to this point, see 1398:. Do you spell "quixotic" with a capital 348:. Your comments would be most welcome. -- 248:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week 42:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 6539:Open call for individual Psalms articles 5975:Knowledge:Organisation of Bible articles 4618:Knowledge:Organisation of Bible articles 2667:repeat this for all of the hundreds of 1991:Style Manuals that specifically mention 1275:Specific policy needed on capitalisation 610:Knowledge:WikiProject Biblical Criticism 6440:I would like to create category called 6304:This is a notice to let you know about 6240:WikiProject coordinators' working group 5657:We would like to ask you to review the 5120:Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 4920:Template:WikiProject Biblical Criticism 4423:I found a lonely little article called 3849:, the corresponding adjectival form of 3811:Note the current status quo, it reads: 3426:regularly in its own text (for example 2007:) when in doubt about capitalization: 453:List of people who went to heaven alive 14: 7072: 6854:under their scope. Since August 2007, 4325:_Tanakh-2007-11-13T04:51:00.000Z": --> 4314:_Tanakh-2007-11-13T04:51:00.000Z": --> 850:There has been a recent discussion at 158:Do not edit the contents of this page. 6758:User:John Carter/Christianity portals 6732:Textual variants in the New Testament 6188:modern translations are based on the 5886:And how controversial - for example, 5727:Knowledge:WikiProject Religious texts 5667:Knowledge:Release Version Nominations 5411:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew) 5257:Particularly unacceptable, IMO, are 5209:I'd appreciate some more eyeballs at 4318:Development of the Jewish Bible canon 4294:Talk:Bible errata#Wife Beater's Bible 4199:you cite, that CMOS style is plainly 3446:what we're seeking to do, is it not?) 3316:examples. I'll give you that much. — 2136:and it really doesn't matter why.. — 1004:26 September 2007 - expires 1 October 981:Please discuss proposed page move at 485:There is a problem with a dispute at 288:I recently found that our article on 5770:Call for participation in discussion 5648:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 4826:Please could someone take a look at 2867:. The recent or current editions of 2091:of these sources capitaize the word 1232:article into two separate articles, 413:about whether or not to rename/move 145: 31: 29: 25: 6930:I have done the GA Reassessment of 6212:difference to the Masoretic text. 5659:articles selected from this project 5345:User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings 4086:of the Bible over Veda, Qur'an etc. 846:What should have separate articles? 48:It is of interest to the following 23: 5957:I've been looking around for some 5774:Please review the discussion here 5237:) has been re-writing the article 4739:How do I properly quote the bible? 4625:if you would like to comment on it 4514:for discussion locations. Best, -- 3418:Til, my older edition of AH gives 2778:Support for biblical (lowercase b) 894:Another good example would be the 451:Up for deletion: the badly named " 24: 7101: 6756:purpose, I have started the page 6486:through the sub-categories under 6339:If you are already subscribed to 5075:According to the translations on 4952:seems embarassingly inadequate. 4872:, so a consensus can be reached. 4762:that's specific to the bible(s). 4498:There are two proposals to merge 2899:unabridged dictionaries all list 2027:The Publication Manual of the APA 102:This page is within the scope of 5799:Roman numerals in Bible citation 5362:; I'm not watching this page. -- 4807:. Thank you for your attention. 4522:) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 4257:One featured article per quarter 2935:My personal usage would also be 2633:Support for Biblical (capital B) 2572: 2074:reduce confusion and ambiguity. 1462:And by "facts" (see today's FA, 1131:articles had been arranged on a 297:. Thank you for your attention. 149: 89: 79: 61: 30: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Bible 6812:the Children's Bible Story Book 6691:The Children's Bible Story Book 5986:User:MonkeeSage/Bible_templates 5499:include the Bible. Please see 5387:. Please see the discussion at 5033:Can I suggest that the present 4780:User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates 4691:Thanks for placing the article 3508:What are you trying to achieve? 2977:Westminster Theological Journal 2001:Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 220:User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates 6868:. After nearly two years, the 6585:Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian) 6397:} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC) 5696:23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4169:Chicago Manual of Style online 4145:How about, "always lower case 2035:The Associated Press Stylebook 1557:, etc. while not capitalizing 1212:23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1041:Bible summary of every chapter 630:merger sounds like a good idea 262:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 13: 1: 7048:. Please share your opinions 6365:Knowledge talk:Article alerts 6269:04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC) 6229:00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 5931:01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 5879:05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 5827:New page for your Wikiproject 5794:21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 5765:13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 5747:needs much love and attention 5739:01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 5715:09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5633:01:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 5518:16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 5505:Creation according to Genesis 5086:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism 4836:links to disambiguation pages 4664:15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 4637:19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 4609:03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 4485:18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 4470:15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 4395:00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4343:04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 4308:21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4271:Authorized King James Version 4250:Authorized King James Version 4244:20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 4088:Note, I implore you, for the 3422:as a second option, and uses 3308:compare to Chicago, AP, MLA, 3133:15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2843:'s opinion is to the contrary 2752:16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2738:15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2723:15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2707:15:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2568:RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical" 2123:apt comparison because there 1279:A debate has arisen today at 1174:19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1153:19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1122:covers several chapters, and 1111:14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 1083:07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 972:18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 782:18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 757:18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 599:18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 585:, which is fairly decent, to 400:18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 293:chosen as the AID article at 256:17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 232:23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC) 210:14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 116:and see a list of open tasks. 7085:NA-importance Bible articles 7080:Project-Class Bible articles 6411:featured article review here 6116:variation in translations. 6089:Contemporary English Version 6049:04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 5845:20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 5821:07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 5338:Articles flagged for cleanup 4860:I have proposed a move from 4642:Definition of Project Scope? 4587:16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 4445:11:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 4414:23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 4367:19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 4264:17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 4227:12:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4177:11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4161:07:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4136:05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4071:05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4031:03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3994:00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3964:22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3955:22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3930:22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3916:22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3895:01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 3867:21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3777:23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3759:23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3749:22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3685:22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3665:21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3652:21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3642:21:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3595:21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3548:21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3538:01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3497:Well, the evidence from the 3493:11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3457:00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3406:00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3393:00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3365:00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3345:22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3325:22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3292:21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3274:21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3257:21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3240:18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3223:18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3206:18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3189:18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3159:16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3118:21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3108:19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3087:18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3077:18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3063:18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3053:18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3018:17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3008:17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2994:16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2984:07:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2960:14:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2949:01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2929:00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2859:21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2824:17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2813:16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2773:03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 2590:01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 2552:16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2542:14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2514:14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2504:14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2444:14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2429:13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2416:11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2387:04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2352:00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2327:23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2227:22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2161:22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2145:22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2079:21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2058:21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 1907:of these sources capitalize 1880:17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1793:18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1753:17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1695:17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1655:17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1529:15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1505:15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1483:14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1457:? Where are the examples of 1436:14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1420:14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1349:14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1335:14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1301:14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1289:14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1270:20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 1253:05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 1224:A proposal has been made on 331:02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 203:WikiProject Military history 7: 6730:I have created the article 6234:Coordinators' working group 6208:texts/etc. if these have a 6152:New American Standard Bible 5587:16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5564:15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 5486:16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 5471:15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 5455:13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 4897:User talk:John Carter/Bible 4832:Special:WhatLinksHere/Tamar 4828:Special:WhatLinksHere/Judah 2917:– except in compounds like 2399:"That's just the way it is" 1740:is more commonly used than 1063:23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 1051:22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 990:00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 935:a general consensus reached 507:Category:Mythological ships 302:18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 273:22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 122:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 10: 7106: 7090:WikiProject Bible articles 7034:Talk:Roman Catholic Church 6858:has been participating in 6744:15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 6721:20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 6676:23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 6662:23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 6642:22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 6613:23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 6557:07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 6531:20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 6513:20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 6475:20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 6455:20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 6431:15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 6293:17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 6178:thou shalt commit adultery 6107:. (literal translation of 6097:. (literal translation of 5663:Knowledge talk:Version 0.7 5430:05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 4982:-- no mention, eg, of the 4924:Template:WikiProject Bible 4848:09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4817:00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4753:11:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4733:03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 4717:18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 4565:00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 4283:00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 2909:, for example, recommends 2897:Merriam-Webster Collegiate 2697:Respectfully submitted by 1646:capricious literature"? — 1180:Biblical original research 1100:, Peter's denial, and the 929:20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 913:20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 903:19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 881:19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 871:19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 718:PPS nice work warlord! ;) 577:21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 554:12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 536:00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 517:00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 500:23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 472:18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 446:02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 422:01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 125:Template:WikiProject Bible 7060:12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 7011:03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 6983:20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 6967:19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 6856:WikiProject Good Articles 6580:Spiritual use of cannabis 6415:featured article criteria 6359:parameter, but forget to 6119:Here's another - part of 5947:02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 5401:14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 5372:17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 5333:22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 5304:17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 5160:Category:C-Class_articles 5112:21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 5098:18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 5070:16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 5051:07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 4679:12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 4547:, the Counselor, and the 4524:Spiritual use of cannabis 4506:and one to merge it with 4151:Vedic, Qur'anic, Biblical 4142:side-line a red-herring. 3853:should always be spelled 2965:The SBL Handbook of Style 2012:The SBL Handbook of Style 2003:(which do not capitalize 1951:The SBL Handbook of Style 1937:The SBL Handbook of Style 860:13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 841:12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 826:20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 743:20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 382:07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 353:23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 283:Article Improvement Drive 184:23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 74: 56: 6973:It will look like this. 6948:16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 6918:22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 6841:21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 6801:23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 6626:WikiProject Christianity 6547:if you're interested. - 5294:. All input is welcome. 5279:11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5198:22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 4936:08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 4909:17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 4792:00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 4772:00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 4526:states " Anthropologist 4149:, except in lists, like 3180:) in most situations. — 2645:the book of mormon, the 1370:around adding a capital 1102:Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus 814:18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 723:18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 714:14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 693:14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 666:10:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 615:merging the two together 386:I've certainly heard of 6770:17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 5355:on your project page. 5349:have already subscribed 5213:, (which is also where 4944:-- seriously inadequate 4882:22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4502:, one to merge it with 4082:actually discriminates 4046:actually discriminates 3821:should be capitalized." 2906:Chicago Manual of Style 2649:the five classics, the 2641:be spelled qur'an, the 2401:. To which I respond, 2041:I'm not sure about the 2019:Chicago Manual of Style 1955:Chicago Manual of Style 1941:Chicago Manual of Style 1561:is inconsistent. Also, 1244:becoming a redirect to 1203:the current version of 637:06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 623:22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 7066:_Catholic_Church": --> 7063:_Catholic_Church": --> 7059:_Catholic_Church": --> 7030:_Catholic_Church": --> 6343:, it is now easier to 6073:New Living Translation 5980:Knowledge:Bible verses 5866:list of Biblical names 5862:list of Biblical names 5857:list of Biblical names 5685:this project's subpage 4970:the discussion of the 4959:the discussion of the 4893:User:John Carter/Bible 4778:Found something. See 3428:study of bibical texts 2621:be the preferred form? 2283:be the preferred form? 1873:Knowledge:Proper names 1246:Bible (disambiguation) 344:should be included in 215:Bible source templates 7039:Roman Catholic Church 6328:and other workflows ( 6318:Articles for deletion 5953:style standardisation 5751:I just stumbled upon 5689:User:SelectionBot/0.7 3829:"Scriptures like the 3813:"Scriptures like the 2653:the bagavidgita, the 1228:to split the current 652:comment was added by 567:Unified Presentation? 427:Controversy on Daniel 409:There is currently a 336:Lazarus and Dives RFC 199:WikiProject Australia 6846:GA Sweeps invitation 6566:Is the Tree of Life 6495:Wikiproject Religion 6349:request new features 6322:Requests for comment 5678:copyediting requests 5407:Request for comments 5378:Template:BibleAsFact 5317:WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion 4866:Rich man and Lazarus 2043:The MLA Style Manual 1599:is more common than 995:Proposed deletions ( 237:Knowledge Day Awards 195:WikiProject Religion 6923:GA Reassessment of 6810:Just to point out, 6684:Article to be rated 6570:, specifically the 6134:...there shall the 6040:s:Bible/Obadiah/1/1 5575:New Jerusalem Bible 5219:Five Books of Moses 4974:discusses just the 4963:discusses only the 4687:article name change 4076:Ah, AH. You write: 2661:be upanishads, the 1390:is capitalized but 1120:sermon on the mount 1033:on 28 August 2007) 433:Talk:Book of Daniel 6893:running total page 6142:New American Bible 5250:perspectives, not 5176:1.0 Editorial Team 4570:Toward Peer Review 4545:laying on of hands 4532:Holy anointing oil 4512:Holy anointing oil 4500:Holy anointing oil 4492:Holy anointing oil 4316:Proposal to merge 3304:Do these examples 2793:Christianity Today 2375:Strunk & White 1197:blocked four times 1184:For a good while, 832:Change suggestions 686:support the merger 544:Linking References 405:For Your Attention 44:content assessment 6834: 6714: 6616: 6599:comment added by 6545:See template here 6405:I have nominated 6380: 6271: 6265: 6198:Samaritan version 5982:(notability poll) 5562: 5556: 5476:simultaneously.-- 5360:my user talk page 5195: 5056:"Book of the Law" 4993:The Straight Dope 4967:and nothing else; 4862:Lazarus and Dives 4855:Lazarus and Dives 4669:project's scope. 4378:Proposed deletion 4306: 4259:project? Cheers! 3592: 3475:American Heritage 3110: 3098:comment added by 2973:Bibliotheca Sacra 2947: 2856: 2676:if you doubt me). 1682:Slaves in Algiers 1195:. S/he has been 784: 768:comment added by 669: 481:as "Mythological" 380: 346:Lazarus and Dives 168: 167: 144: 143: 140: 139: 136: 135: 105:WikiProject Bible 7097: 7067: 7064: 7057: 7031: 7025: 7018: 6832: 6827: 6823: 6819: 6726:Textual variants 6712: 6707: 6703: 6699: 6615: 6593: 6510: 6505: 6490:for a precedent. 6467: 6371:Message sent by 6370: 6358: 6262: 6257: 6254: 6247: 6202:Dead Sea scrolls 6047: 5753:Synoptic Gospels 5745:Synoptic Gospels 5701:What is a Bible? 5599: 5558: 5552: 5548:." Thoughts? -- 5546: 5510:Til Eulenspiegel 5447:Til Eulenspiegel 5285:Dating the Bible 5192: 5187: 5184: 5039:Dating the Bible 5035:Dating the Bible 4950:Dating the Bible 4942:Dating the Bible 4853:Requested move: 4693:Binding of Isaac 4685:Binding of Isaac 4504:Shemen Afarsimon 4494:merger proposals 4374: 4371: 4355: 4350: 4347: 4332: 4326: 4315: 4300: 4222: 4195:affirms, in the 4174:Til Eulenspiegel 4131: 4026: 3952:Til Eulenspiegel 3913:Til Eulenspiegel 3890: 3864:Til Eulenspiegel 3774:Til Eulenspiegel 3747: 3745: 3682:Til Eulenspiegel 3649:Til Eulenspiegel 3586: 3545:Til Eulenspiegel 3533: 3486:Til Eulenspiegel 3452: 3403:Til Eulenspiegel 3388: 3357:Til Eulenspiegel 3342:Til Eulenspiegel 3323: 3321: 3289:Til Eulenspiegel 3271:Til Eulenspiegel 3254:Til Eulenspiegel 3237:Til Eulenspiegel 3220:Til Eulenspiegel 3203:Til Eulenspiegel 3187: 3185: 3156:Til Eulenspiegel 3115:Til Eulenspiegel 3093: 3084:Til Eulenspiegel 3050:Til Eulenspiegel 3005:Til Eulenspiegel 2943: 2924: 2850: 2811: 2809: 2576: 2539:Til Eulenspiegel 2501:Til Eulenspiegel 2413:Til Eulenspiegel 2349:Til Eulenspiegel 2325: 2323: 2224:Til Eulenspiegel 2158:Til Eulenspiegel 2143: 2141: 2076:Til Eulenspiegel 2056: 2054: 1790:Til Eulenspiegel 1751: 1749: 1692:Til Eulenspiegel 1653: 1651: 1526:Til Eulenspiegel 1502:Til Eulenspiegel 1481: 1479: 1433:Til Eulenspiegel 1418: 1416: 1346:Til Eulenspiegel 1333: 1331: 1298:Til Eulenspiegel 1286:Til Eulenspiegel 1281:Talk:Creationism 1124:Christ the Logos 822:User talk:FDuffy 763: 739:User talk:FDuffy 647: 639:(P.S. Barsoom!!) 388:Son of Perdition 370: 153: 146: 130: 129: 126: 123: 120: 99: 94: 93: 92: 83: 76: 75: 65: 58: 57: 35: 34: 33: 26: 7105: 7104: 7100: 7099: 7098: 7096: 7095: 7094: 7070: 7069: 7053: 7032:Wikipedians at 7027: 7021:Catholic Church 6993: 6989:hapax legomenon 6955: 6928: 6848: 6830: 6825: 6817: 6808: 6780: 6753: 6728: 6710: 6705: 6697: 6686: 6650:Christian music 6622: 6594: 6564: 6541: 6508: 6503: 6465: 6438: 6403: 6392: 6356: 6314:fully-automated 6302: 6277: 6260: 6250: 6236: 6045:John Vandenberg 6043: 5959:manual of style 5955: 5892:....Manasseh... 5852: 5829: 5801: 5772: 5749: 5703: 5641: 5614:And linking to 5597: 5571:Jerusalem Bible 5544: 5530: 5478:Scott MacDonald 5442:Talk:Noah's Ark 5437: 5414: 5385:deletion policy 5381: 5340: 5313: 5288: 5207: 5190: 5180: 5171:leave a message 5122: 5058: 4946: 4922:be merged with 4916: 4889: 4858: 4824: 4800: 4741: 4689: 4644: 4594: 4572: 4496: 4458: 4421: 4402: 4380: 4328: 4292:Hi. Please see 4290: 4261:Wassupwestcoast 4253: 4220: 4158:Alastair Haines 4129: 4068:Alastair Haines 4024: 3991:Alastair Haines 3888: 3803: 3743: 3741: 3593: 3531: 3515:(normally as a 3450: 3386: 3319: 3317: 3183: 3181: 3151: 2981:Alastair Haines 2941:Septentrionalis 2922: 2919:Biblical Hebrew 2857: 2807: 2805: 2780: 2674:Religious Texts 2669:Religious texts 2635: 2592: 2570: 2363: 2321: 2319: 2139: 2137: 2052: 2050: 1869:Manual of Style 1747: 1745: 1649: 1647: 1477: 1475: 1414: 1412: 1329: 1327: 1277: 1238:Christian Bible 1222: 1182: 1098:Arrest of Jesus 1043: 1023: 1010:Kolasin aiõnios 1001: 979: 848: 834: 791: 720:Alastair Haines 711:Alastair Haines 690:Alastair Haines 648:—The preceding 606: 604:Proposed merger 569: 546: 483: 457: 429: 407: 364:Son of Iniquity 360: 338: 320:Shemhamphorasch 316:Mosaic Covenant 309: 286: 265: 239: 217: 191: 173: 127: 124: 121: 118: 117: 95: 90: 88: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 7103: 7093: 7092: 7087: 7082: 7037: 7026: 7014: 6992: 6986: 6972: 6971:Got it. #~~~~ 6970: 6954: 6951: 6927: 6921: 6889:GA sweeps page 6847: 6844: 6807: 6804: 6779: 6773: 6752: 6747: 6736:Leszek Jańczuk 6727: 6724: 6685: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6621: 6618: 6563: 6560: 6540: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6534: 6533: 6516: 6515: 6491: 6478: 6477: 6466:Gadget850 (Ed) 6442:Category:Enoch 6437: 6436:Category:Enoch 6434: 6402: 6401:Noah's Ark FAR 6399: 6388: 6341:Article Alerts 6308:Article alerts 6301: 6299:Article alerts 6296: 6276: 6273: 6248:Delievered by 6235: 6232: 6190:masoretic text 6166: 6165: 6155: 6145: 6131: 6113: 6112: 6102: 6099:masoretic text 6092: 6082: 6076: 6066: 6004: 6003: 5998: 5993: 5988: 5983: 5977: 5972: 5954: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5851: 5848: 5837:Carl.bunderson 5828: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5800: 5797: 5782: 5781: 5771: 5768: 5748: 5742: 5707:Phil Burnstein 5702: 5699: 5640: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5612: 5601: 5594: 5590: 5589: 5534:Tetragrammaton 5529: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5445:this POV is. 5436: 5433: 5413: 5404: 5380: 5375: 5339: 5336: 5312: 5307: 5287: 5282: 5267: 5266: 5262: 5206: 5201: 5156: 5155: 5152:described here 5148: 5141: 5126:may have heard 5121: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5057: 5054: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5020: 5015: 5010: 5005: 4988: 4987: 4980:book of Isaiah 4968: 4965:book of Daniel 4955:For example, 4945: 4939: 4915: 4912: 4888: 4887:Project banner 4885: 4857: 4851: 4823: 4822:Disambiguation 4820: 4799: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4775: 4774: 4740: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4688: 4682: 4643: 4640: 4621: 4620: 4593: 4590: 4575:Gospel of Mark 4571: 4568: 4495: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4457: 4448: 4420: 4417: 4401: 4398: 4379: 4376: 4333:Discussion on 4327: 4311: 4289: 4286: 4252: 4247: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4217: 4180: 4179: 4139: 4138: 4126: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4021: 4018: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3885: 3802: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3644: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3585: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3479:Dictionary.com 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3447: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3396: 3395: 3383: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3310:New York Times 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3192: 3191: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3120: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 2997: 2996: 2986: 2962: 2952: 2951: 2932: 2931: 2911:M-W Collegiate 2861: 2849: 2830:My vote's for 2827: 2826: 2779: 2776: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2740: 2696: 2694: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2678: 2677: 2643:Book of Mormon 2634: 2631: 2623: 2622: 2597: 2594: 2571: 2569: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2419: 2418: 2407: 2406: 2362: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2082: 2081: 2066: 2065: 2047: 2046: 2039: 2031: 2023: 2015: 1989: 1988: 1977: 1974:New York Times 1969: 1964: 1959: 1945: 1932: 1927: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1439: 1438: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1338: 1337: 1276: 1273: 1221: 1215: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1156: 1155: 1114: 1113: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1027:The Chronicler 1022: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1006: 1005: 1000: 993: 978: 975: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 896:Good Samaritan 886: 885: 884: 883: 847: 844: 833: 830: 829: 828: 790: 787: 786: 785: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 682: 673: 672: 671: 670: 641: 640: 605: 602: 583:Books of Kings 568: 565: 545: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 520: 519: 482: 475: 456: 449: 428: 425: 415:Paul of Tarsus 406: 403: 359: 356: 337: 334: 308: 305: 285: 281:nominated for 276: 264: 259: 238: 235: 216: 213: 190: 187: 172: 169: 166: 165: 154: 142: 141: 138: 137: 134: 133: 131: 128:Bible articles 114:the discussion 101: 100: 84: 72: 71: 66: 54: 53: 47: 36: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7102: 7091: 7088: 7086: 7083: 7081: 7078: 7077: 7075: 7068: 7061: 7056: 7051: 7047: 7044: 7040: 7035: 7022: 7013: 7012: 7008: 7004: 7000: 6997: 6990: 6985: 6984: 6980: 6976: 6968: 6964: 6960: 6950: 6949: 6945: 6941: 6937: 6933: 6926: 6920: 6919: 6915: 6911: 6907: 6903: 6898: 6894: 6890: 6885: 6881: 6879: 6878: 6873: 6872: 6871:running total 6867: 6863: 6862: 6857: 6853: 6843: 6842: 6839: 6838: 6833: 6828: 6822: 6820: 6813: 6803: 6802: 6798: 6794: 6790: 6785: 6778: 6772: 6771: 6767: 6763: 6759: 6751: 6746: 6745: 6741: 6737: 6733: 6723: 6722: 6719: 6718: 6713: 6708: 6702: 6700: 6693: 6692: 6677: 6673: 6669: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6654:Feline Hymnic 6651: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6643: 6639: 6635: 6631: 6627: 6617: 6614: 6610: 6606: 6602: 6598: 6591: 6586: 6581: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6559: 6558: 6554: 6550: 6546: 6532: 6528: 6524: 6520: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6514: 6511: 6506: 6500: 6496: 6492: 6489: 6484: 6480: 6479: 6476: 6473: 6471: 6470: 6468: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6452: 6448: 6443: 6433: 6432: 6428: 6424: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6398: 6396: 6391: 6386: 6381: 6378: 6374: 6368: 6366: 6362: 6354: 6353:"news system" 6350: 6346: 6342: 6337: 6335: 6331: 6327: 6323: 6319: 6315: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6300: 6295: 6294: 6290: 6286: 6282: 6272: 6270: 6266: 6263: 6255: 6253: 6243: 6241: 6231: 6230: 6226: 6222: 6221:Clinkophonist 6218: 6213: 6211: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6195: 6191: 6187: 6181: 6179: 6173: 6171: 6163: 6159: 6156: 6153: 6149: 6146: 6143: 6139: 6137: 6132: 6129: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6122: 6117: 6110: 6106: 6103: 6100: 6096: 6093: 6090: 6086: 6083: 6080: 6077: 6074: 6070: 6067: 6064: 6060: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6051: 6050: 6046: 6041: 6036: 6031: 6029: 6024: 6022: 6018: 6014: 6010: 6002: 5999: 5997: 5994: 5992: 5989: 5987: 5984: 5981: 5978: 5976: 5973: 5971: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5964: 5960: 5948: 5944: 5940: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5928: 5924: 5923:Clinkophonist 5920: 5917: 5913: 5910: 5907: 5905: 5901: 5897: 5893: 5889: 5884: 5881: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5867: 5863: 5858: 5847: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5822: 5818: 5814: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5806: 5796: 5795: 5791: 5787: 5780: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5767: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5746: 5741: 5740: 5736: 5732: 5731:Clinkophonist 5728: 5724: 5723: 5717: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5698: 5697: 5694: 5690: 5686: 5681: 5679: 5675: 5670: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5655: 5653: 5649: 5645: 5644:Knowledge 0.7 5634: 5630: 5626: 5625:Clinkophonist 5622: 5617: 5616:Tetragramaton 5613: 5610: 5606: 5602: 5595: 5592: 5591: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5579:Peter jackson 5576: 5572: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5561: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5540: 5539:God of Israel 5535: 5519: 5515: 5511: 5506: 5502: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5487: 5483: 5479: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5468: 5464: 5463:Feline Hymnic 5459: 5458: 5457: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5443: 5432: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5419: 5412: 5408: 5403: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5390: 5386: 5379: 5374: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5364:B. Wolterding 5361: 5356: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5335: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5318: 5311: 5306: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5286: 5281: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5263: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5255: 5253: 5249: 5243: 5242: 5239: 5236: 5233: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5205: 5200: 5199: 5196: 5193: 5185: 5183: 5177: 5172: 5167: 5165: 5161: 5153: 5149: 5146: 5142: 5139: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5131: 5127: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5053: 5052: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5031: 5024: 5021: 5019: 5016: 5014: 5011: 5009: 5006: 5004: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4995: 4994: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4976:book of Kings 4973: 4969: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4953: 4951: 4943: 4938: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4911: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4884: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4856: 4850: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4834:and help fix 4833: 4829: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4686: 4681: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671:Clinkophonist 4666: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4629:Clinkophonist 4626: 4619: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4611: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4599: 4596:See it here: 4589: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4567: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4510:. Please see 4509: 4505: 4501: 4493: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4468: 4467:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 4464: 4456: 4452: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4425:Jabesh-Gilead 4419:Jabesh Gilead 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4397: 4396: 4393: 4390:. Thank you. 4389: 4385: 4375: 4373:_Tanakh": --> 4370:_Tanakh": --> 4368: 4366:_Tanakh": --> 4363: 4359: 4354:_Tanakh": --> 4351: 4349:_Tanakh": --> 4346:_Tanakh": --> 4344: 4342:_Tanakh": --> 4340: 4336: 4331:_Tanakh": --> 4323: 4319: 4310: 4309: 4304: 4299: 4295: 4285: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4266: 4265: 4262: 4258: 4251: 4246: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236:Clinkophonist 4228: 4225: 4218: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4202: 4198: 4197:obiter dictum 4193: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4178: 4175: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4154: 4152: 4148: 4143: 4137: 4134: 4127: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4107:it is written 4104: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4085: 4079: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4069: 4064: 4060: 4058: 4052: 4049: 4045: 4040: 4032: 4029: 4022: 4019: 4017: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3992: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3965: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3931: 3928: 3924: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3896: 3893: 3886: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3865: 3859: 3858: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3826: 3823: 3822: 3820: 3816: 3809: 3808: 3778: 3775: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3746: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3686: 3683: 3678: 3666: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3645: 3643: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3596: 3591: 3590: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3549: 3546: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3536: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3518: 3514: 3509: 3505: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3491: 3490:Really Spooky 3487: 3483: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3458: 3455: 3448: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3407: 3404: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3394: 3391: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3362:Really Spooky 3358: 3346: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3326: 3322: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3275: 3272: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3258: 3255: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3224: 3221: 3218: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3157: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100:70.239.93.159 3097: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3085: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3074:70.239.93.159 3070: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3038: 3036: 3034: 3032: 3031: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3016: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2992: 2991:70.239.93.159 2987: 2985: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2963: 2961: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2927: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2866: 2862: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2848: 2844: 2842: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2789: 2785: 2775: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2687: 2683: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2665:, torah, and 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647:Five Classics 2644: 2640: 2630: 2628: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2575: 2553: 2550: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2515: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2445: 2442: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2360: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2328: 2324: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2228: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2146: 2142: 2135: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1976: 1975: 1970: 1968: 1965: 1963: 1960: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1946: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1794: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1754: 1750: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1656: 1652: 1644: 1640: 1637:school) that 1636: 1632: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1530: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1434: 1429: 1428: 1421: 1417: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1282: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1191: 1190:Stations list 1187: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1166:Clinkophonist 1164: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145:Clinkophonist 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1052: 1049: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1003: 1002: 998: 992: 991: 988: 984: 974: 973: 969: 965: 964:Clinkophonist 961: 958: 955: 952: 949: 946: 943: 939: 938:on this issue 936: 931: 930: 927: 914: 911: 906: 905: 904: 901: 897: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 882: 879: 874: 873: 872: 869: 864: 863: 862: 861: 858: 853: 843: 842: 839: 827: 824: 823: 818: 817: 816: 815: 812: 811:84.196.90.174 808: 805: 802: 798: 795: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 761: 760: 759: 758: 754: 750: 749:Clinkophonist 745: 744: 741: 740: 724: 721: 717: 716: 715: 712: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 694: 691: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 645: 644: 643: 642: 638: 635: 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 621: 616: 611: 601: 600: 596: 592: 591:Clinkophonist 588: 584: 579: 578: 575: 564: 562: 556: 555: 552: 537: 533: 529: 524: 523: 522: 521: 518: 515: 514: 508: 504: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 488: 480: 474: 473: 470: 466: 465: 461: 454: 448: 447: 443: 439: 434: 424: 423: 420: 416: 412: 402: 401: 397: 393: 392:Clinkophonist 389: 384: 383: 378: 374: 369: 365: 355: 354: 351: 350:Joopercoopers 347: 343: 342:Jesus Seminar 333: 332: 329: 328:Badbilltucker 325: 321: 317: 313: 304: 303: 300: 299:Badbilltucker 296: 291: 284: 280: 275: 274: 271: 270:Badbilltucker 263: 258: 257: 254: 253:Badbilltucker 249: 244: 234: 233: 230: 226: 221: 212: 211: 208: 207:Badbilltucker 204: 200: 196: 186: 185: 182: 178: 163: 159: 155: 152: 148: 147: 132: 115: 111: 107: 106: 98: 87: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 70: 67: 64: 60: 59: 55: 51: 45: 41: 37: 28: 27: 19: 7028: 7001: 6998: 6994: 6956: 6929: 6886: 6882: 6877:new worklist 6875: 6869: 6859: 6849: 6835: 6815: 6809: 6781: 6754: 6750:Portal:Bible 6729: 6715: 6695: 6689: 6687: 6623: 6601:Knosisophile 6576:Acacia seyal 6572:Shittah-tree 6565: 6562:Tree of Life 6542: 6462: 6461: 6439: 6404: 6382: 6369: 6360: 6357:display=none 6340: 6338: 6306: 6305: 6303: 6278: 6256: 6251: 6244: 6237: 6214: 6209: 6185: 6182: 6174: 6167: 6157: 6147: 6133: 6127: 6121:Isaiah 34:14 6118: 6114: 6104: 6094: 6084: 6078: 6068: 6063:Living Bible 6058: 6052: 6032: 6025: 6005: 5956: 5921: 5918: 5914: 5911: 5908: 5895: 5891: 5888:Judges 18:30 5885: 5882: 5853: 5830: 5802: 5783: 5773: 5750: 5720: 5718: 5704: 5693:SelectionBot 5682: 5671: 5656: 5650:has made an 5642: 5604: 5577:use Yahweh. 5531: 5438: 5422:Shirahadasha 5415: 5393:Shirahadasha 5382: 5357: 5341: 5325:Shirahadasha 5314: 5289: 5268: 5256: 5251: 5247: 5244: 5231: 5223: 5208: 5186: 5181: 5168: 5157: 5137: 5123: 5059: 5032: 5029: 4991: 4989: 4984:book of Amos 4954: 4948:The article 4947: 4917: 4890: 4859: 4825: 4801: 4742: 4725:Bryan H Bell 4709:Bryan H Bell 4690: 4684: 4667: 4645: 4622: 4612: 4595: 4573: 4557:Knosisophile 4534:used by the 4516:Shirahadasha 4497: 4462: 4459: 4422: 4403: 4381: 4352: 4339:Shirahadasha 4329: 4291: 4288:Bible errata 4275:Knosisophile 4267: 4254: 4233: 4213: 4209: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4191: 4186: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4144: 4140: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4083: 4081: 4077: 4065: 4061: 4053: 4047: 4043: 4041: 4037: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3976: 3877: 3860: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3828: 3827: 3824: 3818: 3814: 3812: 3810: 3804: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3630: 3587: 3516: 3512: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3379: 3353: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3152: 2968: 2964: 2936: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2874: 2868: 2864: 2851: 2840: 2835: 2831: 2800:guidelines ( 2791: 2783: 2781: 2763: 2685: 2681: 2666: 2636: 2624: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2596: 2593: 2579:DMcMPO11AAUK 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2370: 2364: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2188: 2184: 2183:rather than 2180: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2103:rather than 2100: 2096: 2095:. Regarding 2092: 2088: 2070: 2048: 2033: 2025: 2017: 2011: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1990: 1973: 1954: 1950: 1940: 1936: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1894: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1681: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1567: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1513: 1471: 1467: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1365:). The word 1323: 1319: 1318:and capital 1315: 1311: 1294: 1292: 1278: 1267:Shirahadasha 1256: 1250:Shirahadasha 1234:Hebrew Bible 1223: 1205:Elim (Bible) 1183: 1157: 1129:Harry Potter 1072: 1044: 1034: 980: 932: 926:24.4.253.249 923: 900:24.4.253.249 868:24.4.253.249 849: 835: 820: 809: 806: 803: 799: 792: 746: 737: 735: 685: 629: 614: 607: 580: 570: 557: 547: 511: 484: 467: 462: 458: 430: 408: 387: 385: 361: 339: 310: 287: 266: 240: 218: 192: 174: 157: 103: 97:Bible portal 50:WikiProjects 40:project page 39: 6906:Nehrams2020 6902:OhanaUnited 6866:GA criteria 6818:Ross Rhodes 6762:John Carter 6698:Ross Rhodes 6668:John Carter 6634:John Carter 6595:—Preceding 6373:User:Addbot 6361:give a link 6345:report bugs 6326:Peer review 6285:John Carter 6210:significant 6162:The Message 5939:Schnurrbart 5896:...Moses... 5871:Schnurrbart 5296:John Carter 5221:redirect). 5138:new C-Class 5090:John Carter 4901:John Carter 4809:John Carter 4656:John Carter 4648:3 Maccabees 4549:Holy Spirit 4477:John Carter 4392:John Carter 4335:Talk:Tanakh 4119:dhammapadic 3961:John Carter 3927:John Carter 3756:John Carter 3715:Creationism 3662:John Carter 3639:John Carter 3094:—Preceding 3060:John Carter 3015:John Carter 2821:John Carter 2715:John Carter 2651:Bagavadgita 2549:John Carter 2511:John Carter 2441:John Carter 1899:capitalize 1877:John Carter 1186:User:Rktect 1094:Last Supper 1060:John Carter 910:John Carter 878:John Carter 857:John Carter 770:John Carter 764:—Preceding 620:John Carter 561:Genesis 1:1 419:Pastordavid 243:Esperanza's 7074:Categories 6407:Noah's Ark 6395:WP Physics 6383:Thanks. — 6217:Bibleverse 6109:Septuagint 6035:Wikisource 5963:quotations 5961:for Bible 5890:- is that 5831:I've made 5813:Wavelength 5541:" or "the 5420:. Best, -- 5391:. Best, -- 5353:a template 5225:Meieimatai 5215:Pentateuch 4928:Richard001 4918:Shouldn't 4870:discussion 4840:DuncanHill 4528:Sula Benet 4429:WP:CLEANUP 4337:. Best, -- 2967:votes for 2945:PMAnderson 2863:I support 2782:I support 2765:RJRocket53 2659:Upanishads 2657:tipitaka, 1464:Truthiness 1265:. Best, -- 1263:Talk:Bible 1248:. Best, -- 1226:Talk:Bible 987:Coppertwig 574:Seraphim84 487:Noah's Ark 479:Noah's Ark 477:Labelling 411:discussion 368:Strangerer 189:Assessment 6861:GA sweeps 6504:Kateshort 6483:WP:BEBOLD 6330:full list 6138:repose... 6009:WP:ENGVAR 5833:this page 5722:The Bible 5254:Judaism. 5130:WP:ASSESS 5077:this page 4914:Templates 4784:Noca2plus 4764:Noca2plus 4623:I wonder 4356:against-- 4269:started. 4084:in favour 4048:in favour 3481:(see here 2889:Macquarie 2881:Chamber's 2802:WP:ENGVAR 2486:, and of 2436:Tom Baker 1981:Zondervan 1635:Christian 654:TimNelson 587:Leviticus 7055:Carlaude 7043:Catholic 6999:Thanks! 6897:worklist 6609:contribs 6597:unsigned 6549:Epson291 6423:Vassyana 6390:κοντριβς 6385:Headbomb 6194:Peshitta 5757:Gentgeen 5623:is for. 5605:suggests 5235:contribs 5145:a rubric 4978:and the 4874:StAnselm 4701:March 20 4543:, Seal, 4455:Jephthah 4433:WP:BIBLE 4406:Java7837 4358:Java7837 4298:Quiddity 4201:biblical 4123:biblical 4103:biblical 4098:biblical 4080:biblical 4044:biblical 4016:motives. 4007:anything 3948:MOS:CAPS 3911:Cheers, 3878:biblical 3855:biblical 3843:Qur'anic 3801:Comments 3738:biblical 3734:Biblical 3717:article 3711:Biblical 3707:biblical 3527:motives. 3513:Biblical 3440:Biblical 3436:Biblical 3432:biblical 3424:biblical 3420:Biblical 3380:biblical 3174:biblical 3170:biblical 3166:Biblical 3125:Signaj90 3096:unsigned 2969:biblical 2937:Biblical 2915:biblical 2901:biblical 2865:biblical 2836:Biblical 2832:biblical 2798:WP:STYLE 2784:biblical 2744:Signaj90 2730:Signaj90 2699:Signaj90 2655:Tipitaka 2619:Biblical 2615:biblical 2607:biblical 2603:Biblical 2587:Contribs 2484:Talmudic 2426:Vassyana 2379:Darkwind 2361:response 2281:Biblical 2277:biblical 2269:biblical 2265:Biblical 2189:Biblical 2185:Biblical 2181:biblical 2134:biblical 2120:WP:STYLE 2113:biblical 2109:biblical 2105:Biblical 2101:biblical 2097:biblical 2093:biblical 2071:de facto 2005:biblical 1993:biblical 1985:Eerdmans 1913:biblical 1901:biblical 1834:sources. 1742:biblical 1738:Biblical 1643:biblical 1639:biblical 1631:biblical 1601:biblical 1597:Biblical 1593:evidence 1589:Biblical 1573:reliable 1563:Biblical 1559:biblical 1551:Talmudic 1498:WP:BIBLE 1472:biblical 1459:Biblical 1409:biblical 1404:biblical 1392:biblical 1380:biblical 1376:biblical 1367:biblical 1363:WP:STYLE 1316:biblical 1106:Andrew c 1053:Fusek71 1021:Resolved 957:ignoring 778:contribs 766:unsigned 662:contribs 650:unsigned 634:Vassyana 377:Contribs 181:Java7837 175:Vote at 7003:Sderose 6975:Arlen22 6969:Arlen22 6959:Arlen22 6957:Thanks 6940:H1nkles 6932:Ishmael 6925:Ishmael 6914:contrib 6793:H1nkles 6590:Japheth 6261:Disable 6252:§hepBot 6206:Hexapla 6013:JPS1917 5321:WP:NPOV 5191:Disable 5182:§hepBot 5169:Please 5164:The bot 5124:As you 4961:Ketuvim 4652:1 Enoch 4601:Noroton 4579:Ovadyah 4541:Unction 4536:Hebrews 4451:Jephtha 4437:Manning 4320:==: --> 4221:Noetica 4187:against 4130:Noetica 4115:koranic 4025:Noetica 3889:Noetica 3847:Koranic 3713:in the 3532:Noetica 3451:Noetica 3387:Noetica 3176:(small 2923:Noetica 2893:Longman 2885:Collins 1915:is the 1585:Myanmar 1451:current 1382:(small 1240:, with 1220:article 1209:Nyttend 1201:compare 1143:basis. 1048:Fusek71 1035:Deleted 1031:WP:PROD 1014:WP:PROD 997:WP:PROD 942:certain 838:Laleena 632:to me. 551:Akubhai 513:Alekjds 469:Noroton 229:vertigo 7046:Church 6991:edited 6578:? The 6568:Acacia 6509:forbob 6409:for a 6136:lilith 5786:Ac44ck 5621:Yahweh 5573:& 5550:Eliyak 5528:Yahweh 5271:Jheald 5265:Torah. 5043:Jheald 4972:Neviim 4760:WP:CIT 4745:Maikel 4553:Chrism 4508:Chrism 4400:Samson 4322:Tanakh 4057:hoover 3839:Qur'an 3835:Qur'an 3819:Qur'an 3517:second 3306:really 2895:, and 2838:, but 2639:Qur'an 2480:Talmud 1953:& 1939:& 1897:do not 1871:page, 945:people 940:, but 46:scale. 7050:there 6784:Isaac 6777:Isaac 6574:, or 6499:Enoch 6130:(KJV) 6081:(KJV) 5904:Moses 5900:caret 5211:Torah 5204:Torah 4090:third 3882:above 3851:Bible 3831:Bible 3815:Bible 3744:DIEGO 3635:cabal 3583:Ruakh 3523:note. 3504:those 3320:DIEGO 3184:DIEGO 3168:over 3149:Other 2957:Val42 2847:Ruakh 2808:DIEGO 2663:Torah 2611:Bible 2601:Both 2496:Bible 2492:Vedic 2322:DIEGO 2273:Bible 2263:Both 2220:WP:3o 2140:DIEGO 2053:DIEGO 1979:Both 1909:Bible 1748:DIEGO 1733:bible 1729:Bible 1650:DIEGO 1581:Burma 1555:Vedic 1478:DIEGO 1447:today 1415:DIEGO 1388:Vedic 1330:DIEGO 1324:Bible 1308:Bible 1259:Bible 1242:Bible 1230:Bible 1218:Bible 1029:(via 1012:(via 985:. -- 559:(eg. 417:. -- 312:Moreh 290:Jesus 279:Jesus 119:Bible 110:Bible 69:Bible 38:This 16:< 7052:. -- 7007:talk 6979:talk 6963:talk 6944:talk 6936:here 6910:talk 6797:talk 6789:here 6766:talk 6740:talk 6672:talk 6658:talk 6652:.) 6638:talk 6605:talk 6553:talk 6527:talk 6451:talk 6427:talk 6421:. -- 6419:here 6377:here 6347:and 6334:here 6312:, a 6289:talk 6225:talk 6186:most 6170:Adam 5943:talk 5927:talk 5875:talk 5860:The 5841:talk 5817:talk 5790:talk 5761:talk 5735:talk 5711:talk 5629:talk 5583:talk 5514:talk 5482:talk 5467:talk 5451:talk 5426:talk 5397:talk 5368:talk 5329:talk 5300:talk 5275:talk 5252:just 5229:talk 5217:and 5136:The 5108:talk 5104:meco 5094:talk 5081:here 5066:talk 5062:meco 5047:talk 4932:talk 4905:talk 4878:talk 4844:talk 4830:and 4813:talk 4788:talk 4768:talk 4749:talk 4729:talk 4713:talk 4705:2008 4675:talk 4660:talk 4633:talk 4605:talk 4583:talk 4561:talk 4520:talk 4481:talk 4441:talk 4410:talk 4362:talk 4303:talk 4279:talk 4240:talk 4224:Talk 4214:That 4210:rule 4133:Talk 4028:Talk 3892:Talk 3833:and 3817:and 3736:and 3658:here 3589:TALK 3535:Talk 3499:most 3477:and 3454:Talk 3390:Talk 3376:SOED 3129:talk 3104:talk 2926:Talk 2876:SOED 2853:TALK 2769:talk 2748:talk 2734:talk 2719:talk 2703:talk 2605:and 2583:Talk 2488:Veda 2383:talk 2267:and 2130:they 2089:none 1983:and 1972:The 1917:only 1236:and 1193:here 1170:talk 1149:talk 1079:talk 968:talk 948:seem 774:talk 753:talk 658:talk 595:talk 532:ውይይት 496:ውይይት 442:ውይይት 396:talk 373:Talk 358:Help 322:and 162:here 6852:GAs 6806:Hi, 6592:? 6523:ADM 6447:ADM 6087:. ( 6071:. ( 6028:KJV 6021:ASV 6019:or 6017:KJV 5894:or 5811:-- 5687:of 5669:. 5598:ORD 5545:ORD 5409:on 5248:all 4864:to 4463:not 4427:on 4206:it. 4111:its 3845:or 3841:is 3709:to 3631:all 3372:OED 3314:are 2870:OED 2629:. 2617:or 2490:is 2482:is 2371:and 2279:or 2117:why 1999:or 1905:all 1568:are 1470:on 1374:to 1322:on 1314:on 1074:DGG 528:ፈቃደ 492:ፈቃደ 438:ፈቃደ 225:Ste 7076:: 7041:→ 7009:) 6981:) 6965:) 6946:) 6916:) 6912:• 6836:) 6799:) 6768:) 6742:) 6716:) 6674:) 6660:) 6640:) 6611:) 6607:• 6555:) 6529:) 6472:- 6463:— 6453:) 6429:) 6393:– 6367:. 6336:. 6324:, 6320:, 6291:) 6227:) 6123:: 6030:. 6023:. 5945:) 5929:) 5877:) 5843:) 5819:) 5807:. 5792:) 5763:) 5737:) 5729:. 5713:) 5672:A 5654:. 5631:) 5609:El 5585:) 5516:) 5484:) 5469:) 5453:) 5428:) 5399:) 5370:) 5331:) 5302:) 5277:) 5178:, 5132:. 5110:) 5096:) 5068:) 5049:) 4934:) 4907:) 4880:) 4846:) 4815:) 4790:) 4782:. 4770:) 4751:) 4731:) 4723:-- 4715:) 4703:, 4677:) 4662:) 4635:) 4607:) 4585:) 4563:) 4483:) 4443:) 4412:) 4364:) 4281:) 4242:) 4219:– 4192:is 4128:– 4117:, 4023:– 3887:– 3880:, 3857:. 3530:– 3449:– 3444:is 3385:– 3374:, 3131:) 3106:) 2975:, 2971:, 2891:, 2887:, 2883:, 2879:, 2873:, 2788:AP 2771:) 2750:) 2736:) 2721:) 2705:) 2684:, 2385:) 2359:3O 2125:is 2049:— 1725:is 1626:is 1577:is 1553:, 1500:. 1396:is 1172:) 1151:) 1139:, 1135:, 1096:, 1081:) 1071:. 970:) 962:. 960:it 954:be 951:to 780:) 776:• 755:) 664:) 660:• 628:A 597:) 534:) 498:) 444:) 398:) 375:| 318:, 314:, 201:, 7005:( 6977:( 6961:( 6942:( 6908:( 6831:C 6826:T 6821:( 6795:( 6764:( 6738:( 6711:C 6706:T 6701:( 6670:( 6656:( 6636:( 6603:( 6551:( 6525:( 6449:( 6425:( 6387:{ 6379:. 6287:( 6264:) 6258:( 6223:( 6204:/ 6200:/ 6196:/ 6176:' 6164:) 6160:( 6154:) 6150:( 6144:) 6140:( 6065:) 6061:( 5941:( 5925:( 5873:( 5839:( 5815:( 5788:( 5759:( 5733:( 5709:( 5627:( 5596:L 5581:( 5560:C 5557:· 5554:T 5543:L 5537:" 5512:( 5480:( 5465:( 5449:( 5424:( 5395:( 5366:( 5327:( 5298:( 5273:( 5232:· 5227:( 5194:) 5188:( 5154:. 5106:( 5092:( 5064:( 5045:( 4930:( 4903:( 4876:( 4842:( 4811:( 4786:( 4766:( 4747:( 4727:( 4711:( 4673:( 4658:( 4631:( 4627:. 4603:( 4581:( 4559:( 4518:( 4479:( 4453:/ 4439:( 4408:( 4360:( 4305:) 4301:( 4277:( 4238:( 4147:b 3884:. 3730:b 3726:B 3722:B 3703:b 3581:— 3178:b 3127:( 3102:( 2767:( 2746:( 2732:( 2717:( 2701:( 2688:. 2585:/ 2581:/ 2381:( 2191:? 1957:) 1943:) 1468:B 1455:B 1407:' 1400:Q 1384:b 1372:B 1320:B 1312:b 1168:( 1147:( 1077:( 1016:) 999:) 966:( 772:( 751:( 668:. 656:( 593:( 530:( 494:( 455:" 440:( 394:( 379:) 371:( 227:| 164:. 52::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive - Knowledge

Index