64:
Currently at least six articles about single bible chapters contain a version of the entire text of the chapter within it, rather than only links. In fact, they do this twice in each article. Regardless of the existence of the six articles, while they exist, is the presence of the entire text of the
175:
be in these specific articles, one or two editors have continuously reverted the source text back into the article whenever anyone tries to remove it, and so this discussion is ultimately to impose some form of consensus on the issue one way or the other.
28:
50:), any article containing only Bible text should be speedily deleted or redirected as is necessary, and article should only contain as much source text as is necessary for purposes of example. --
43:
46:, entire chapters of the Bible do not belong on wikipedia. Since the Bible already exists in several different translations and different languages at its proper location (
17:
47:
133:
This discussion is specifically to address the presence of two entire translations of whole chapters at the following articles:
168:
54:
127:(King James version but updated to take into account some later discoveries of earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts).?
95:
124:
88:
113:
82:
117:
51:
78:
Should we use only the translations favourable to fundamentalists (as at present)
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
171:. Despite 66% of the voters concluding that the source text should
116:(Roman Catholic translation, partially taking into account
91:(translated by amateurs and sponsored by fundamentalists),
42:
After debate, general consensus seemed to be that, as per
34:
The conclusions of the discussion are summarised below.
44:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't include copies of primary sources
167:There has been a prior vote on this subject at
105:rather than more scholarly translations such as
8:
85:(ancient, based on 16th century knowledge),
98:(the translation excluded non-Protestants)
65:chapter appropriate in Knowledge (XXG)?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Centralized discussion
7:
69:Should the text be included at all
27:The discussion was carried out on
24:
169:Knowledge (XXG):Bible source text
72:Should the text only be linked to
75:Should we have the text twice?
1:
55:04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
190:
96:New International Version
125:Revised Standard Version
60:Summary of the issue(s)
89:World English Bible
114:New American Bible
83:King James Version
118:textual criticism
181:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
180:
179:
178:
62:
40:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
187:
185:
165:
164:
131:
130:
129:
128:
121:
107:
106:
102:
101:
100:
99:
92:
86:
76:
73:
70:
61:
58:
39:
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
186:
177:
174:
170:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
126:
122:
119:
115:
111:
110:
109:
108:
104:
103:
97:
93:
90:
87:
84:
80:
79:
77:
74:
71:
68:
67:
66:
59:
57:
56:
53:
49:
45:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
29:the talk page
19:
172:
166:
132:
63:
41:
33:
26:
25:
38:Conclusions
48:Wikisource
162:Matthew 6
158:Matthew 5
154:Matthew 4
150:Matthew 3
146:Matthew 2
142:Matthew 1
52:InShaneee
138:John 20
81:E.g.
16:<
112:the
173:not
123:or
94:or
160:,
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
120:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.