Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses

2636:

which we have non-biblical evidence. I personally am not interested in looking at the list of individual verses listed above to see if any of them merit inclusion. I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. With respect to such a policy: I doubt that every verse of the Bible merits an article (though probably every chapter does); I think there would be a range of sane policy here. Certainly, though, not every verse deserves a standalone article: at most, some should be redirects to larger, more useful articles. I think that making them redirects has the merit of making less likely the re-creation of trivial articles in the future. As a vote, any

1556:(and I'd prefer one of the second two--no, I have not carefully evaluated each particular element of the proposal). Every time 'what's encyclopedic' gets expanded (most recently elementary schools) recent changes and newpages patrol gets even more overtaxed. I'm finding much more weeks- or even months-old vandalism and crap edits than I did a year ago. I firmly believe this inclusionism is a serious threat to the integrity of Knowledge (XXG). If everyone voting "keep" commits to spending at least an additional 10 hours per week on recent changes patrol, I'll consider changing my vote. Also, what JIP, Wetman, Aaron Brenneman, Ril, Dcarrano, and Scimitar said. 4169:

that most of those who voted in favor of transwikiing thereto lack the technical expertise to actually accomplish such a transwikiing (myself included), but that once the project were up and running, that the superfluous material would happily disappear from the WP project to its more appropriate home. Meanwhile, stalling in order to try to gain more and more votes is patently ridiculous. How long do y'all plan to leave this open? It's already going on 2 weeks. A month? 2 months? 3? 4? 18???! Close this already, and let's move on to constructively address the clear consensi: (a) do not delete and (b) start biblewiki (or whatever).

4154:. I have added up the votes, and the amount of votes to keep the articles is slightly less than those to do something else with them. The difference is negligable, however, thus requiring the VFD to remain open to gain consensus. A result of no-consensus, would just cause the VFD to be re-opened immediately after closing, to determine consensus. It will be re-listed on VFD if it fails to achieve consensus in the next 4 days (as it will drop off the VFD backlog at that point). N.b. consensus is generally regarded as 2/3 majority, or at least a noticable (as opposed to by 1/2 votes out of 60) majority. 2492:-- no question that we can't be this microscopic in Knowledge (XXG) or we descend into an impossible depth and server burden. Ask yourself, not how important is the Bible, but how much should a general user with no knowledge of Christianity expect to find when they look up the Bible or a book of the Bible in an encyclopedia. For consistency, I also would merge or delete or Transwiki all individual TV show epidodes, individual characters in video games, individual characters in LOTR, individual chapters in any other book, individual anything that isn't an important individual. 1532:. I am voting mostly to insure that some other admin gets to sort this vote out. Beyond that, the text of the New Testament contains too much information and has developed too much scholarly analysis over the centuries to be reasonably contained in articles broken at the book or even chapter level. As the traditional division by verse is the de-facto standard for subdividing bible text below the chapter level, it seems like the most reasonable way to organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on this very important religious, literary, and historical work. -- 3687:

have science without the Bible, we can't have politics without prayer, we can't have courthouses and public squares without the Ten Commandments. It's obvious that these articles are questionably encyclopedic and could be perfectly handled in Wikibooks or the previously mentioned annotation project, but some people won't rest until Knowledge (XXG) is thoroughly innoculated with every word of the Bible. Their Bible, that is. I'd like to see them fight as hard for all the holy books of every other important world religion, but I won't hold my breath.

1823:. This would make a great commentary (I'm not sure that it's at all encyclopedic, but whatever). Even most print commentaries will have more than one verse per section. It makes more sense to discuss a passage as a whole (or even a significant portion of a passage) than to isolate individual verses, anyway. You can then say things that are more interesting and relevant. The verse numbering is long-standing and convenient for reference purposes but fairly artificial as a way of breaking up the text. - 3814:-Ril-, you haven't made a credible case for Christian fundamentalism in any way influencing the keep voters, and you misrepresent not only the voters who disagree with you but the whole issue by implying that fundamentalists would even like to keep these articles, which are based on works by scholars representing a historical-critical and philological interpretation. In fact, the only person in any of these votes clearly representing something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism, 3453:. Should not have to discuss the merge on each individual verse article's talk page, that's part of the problem. It's not that the verses aren't noteworthy, but that in most cases they are better dealt with in groups of verses rather individually. Notice the huge amount of duplication among the John 20: verse articles for instance, because they're discussing the same passage. I do think that Ungle G's merge plan should be tweaked slightly; for instance, 2378:

necessary for them to vote here as well. I.e. everyone whose vote was technically, or appeared to be, for a wider vfd than existed at that point, but was covered by this vfd. This included Ruhrfisch. Since issues touching on ideology like this one are intrinsically liable to attract sockpuppet votes by people of that ideology, I have been checking out votes that could be such sockpuppets, discovering Ruhrfisch to be amongst them.

3645:(compared to the remainder of the world) is composed of fundamentalist Christians. Since the other Wikipedias are mainly composed of people who do not edit the en-wikipedia, it is difficult to balance this systemic problem. The only real solution is to take questions like this to all wikipedias at once, and consider only the total vote over all of them (admittedly this has problems with duplicate accounts), however, there is not 3017:. But some are - and I might argue some of these are. I also think that some of these verses should be merged into articles on the passage or chapter they concern rather into Ungle G's suggestions. This proposal is too detailed for a yes/no vote. Unfortunately I can't see any way round considering each verse (or group of verses) individually on their merits. So, although, I'm broadly in favour of merging - I will oppose this -- 2217:). I am not opposed to merging in some other manner (say by blocks of like verses in a given book) or transwikiing them to an annotated Bible, I just think Uncle G's suggestion is too crude an instrument for merging these as they currently stand. If there were a Geneaolgy of Jesus article established, for example, I can see a later vote to split it in two, into a Matthew version and a Luke version. 4037:. Many of the articles noted above are impressively well-referenced and encyclopedic. The Bible has been so over-analyzed over the centuries that a full-length article could almost certainly be written on every verse. That applies to a number of other canonical texts in the world as well-- and if someone creates a bunch of quality articles on individual verses in the 2594:. Certainly doesn't damage our credibility, and can be valuable. I'd be perfectly willing to see these merged together in larger units (e.g. Biblical chapters) when appropriate, but I Bible verses in general as appropriate topics, which seems to be the issue here. Ditto for the Koran and any other comprably important religious works. -- 2648:, open to its consolidation, and—in the event of such consolidation—weakly inclined to support the retention of the existing titles as redirects. If this is too complicated to count as a vote in this VfD, so be it. As I said, I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. -- 2780:. Context is the key to understanding the bible at times. Breakdowns of individual verses is not really helpful or encyclopedic; Re-wordings in plain english might be useful, but this is not the place for them. However, I do support articles on verses such as John 3:16, since it has a history in popular culture as well. 1790:, allow articles on notable individual verses. I also strongly agree with Wetman (about the importance of context) and Francis Davey (about coherence). On a similar VfD I have pointed out that the division into verses is a highly arbitrary and not particularly helpful way of cutting up the text of the Bible. — 1642:- Every individual verse in the Bible already has multiple chapters written on them in Bible commentaries. Knowledge (XXG) should attempt to summarize that information and cite references as the current verse articles are doing. Knowledge (XXG) should be the de facto first commentary on the internet. 4197:

Nah...I noticed that it's more about merging that deleting...I still think the whole kit 'n caboodle should be transwikied—but it would be inappropriate to send it to wikibooks or wikisource. If someone knows how to make wikibible, I'll be more than happy to help remove the VfD tags on the articles.

3921:

Not when it comes to their own holy book. Likewise for Muslims and the Quran. But for other things, I agree. If we were discussing, for example, if individual flavours of cat food merit their own articles, it doesn't matter a toss if the voters were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Cthulhu worshippers.

3913:

On the other hand, here we are trying to determine whether these articles are encyclopedic (or propertly organized). You are claiming that because many of us are Christians, we somehow cannot do this well. But there's no clear reason why this would be the case. Christians, like anyone else, are fully

3644:

The problem with the English wikipedia that others do not suffer is that there is a large systemic bias favouring the views of fundamentalist Christianity. This is merely because a large population of the English speaking world, and particularly of en-wikipedia is from the US, a very large % of which

3281:

of others. Some articles herein were nominated on VfD just days ago. VfD does not seem the appropriate forum to resolve a policy issue of this significance. It is unclear what those voting simply "Merge" want exactly (given ~~~~'s boldface instruction) and no single admin should (or probably would

3150:

Point taken. After the transwikifying, I would then not object to Knowledge (XXG)-appropriate articles -- concentrating on the historical significance of those relatively few notable verses, rather than reproducing the text and giving religious interpretations of every verse -- being re-created over

2005:

as suggested by initiator. Verses are important in their context, which can be far better described in a smaller number of somewhat longer, more coherent, and less repetitive articles. A whole mess of redirects will still allow someone to search by individual verse, and no information need be lost. A

3780:

Regarding another point addressed above, there's a misleading idea being presented here that educated Americans have some fundamental bias in judgment that means the population of the enwiki somehow cannot be trusted to determine rationally what is encyclopedic. This is, naturally, not the case, and

3686:

There is truth in what you say. Not that all supporters of "keep" on this VFD are American or evangelical or even Christian. But we are at a time, especially here in America, when a loud minority feel compelled to insert the Bible, prayer, and religious symbolism into absolutely everything. We can't

3226:

have an article, but it is more natural for the article on the doctrine to refer to the verse and to reiterate it. Thus, there is no real need to have articles on individual verses with all the roles played by those verses. We have the whole KJV at Wikisource, so deletion policy would direct us to

2861:. It seems to be an incredibly poor idea that the Knowledge (XXG) should contain particular pages on particular verses of the bible; except with really important cases. There's nothing important about this one. We really don't need the Knowledge (XXG) to become the bible; we have the bible for that. 2807:

to wikibible (or whatever, ifever that project gets off the ground). To me at least, the "source text" argument is unconvincing. I haven't looked at all the articles in question, but from what I've seen, there is more in each of the articles than just the source text, and in light of the nature of

2367:

to vote here, despite the fact that Ruhrfisch had made only one previous edit, because on the basis of the previous VfD he expected him to support the proposal to merge. Ruhrfisch however changed his position and voted keep, causing -Ril- to challenge his vote - because of a lack of previous edits -

1752:

has been brought up as a counter example of a foundational work of westen society that is not treateds at this level of granularity. I can, upon request, provide bibliographic information on commentary of every book of the bible from every century since the 3rd century and from every country in the

1726:

Hmm. Those are not precisely the "common names" that I would have chosen. I don't have any of my books with me at the moment to look them up, but I suspect that we'll find that there are some differences in common usage in different Christian traditions (for example, those that don't use KJV). If we

4178:

I don't know if you noticed, but this VFD was primarily about merging the articles rather than deleting them. The vote is required to determine whether consensus is to keep the articles as individuals or to merge them together or move them somewhere else. What is being VFD'd is their individuality.

3162:

SimonP, the major difference being that there is a huge body of factual information to be presented about biological entities. I don't believe explaining or commenting or annotating Bible versus has the same weight as factual information, and I don't believe the verses themselves are factual in the

3115:

This is a tough call. Certainly Wikibooks would do well to have an annotation project, especially since their current "The New Testament" is up for speedy deletion. However, I'm not sure that I see how or why that would preclude WP having an entry for the verses which have been influential (just to

2635:

which Bible verses merit articles. For example, a seemingly trivial verse might merit an article on the basis of controversy over its translation, or Kabbalistic significance, or for being the sole occurrence of particular Hebrew or Greek words in the Bible, or for alluding to a person or event for

2246:

I signed up as a member to vote on the original VfD (and not to be called a liar). I am new to Knowledge (XXG) but I have been doing html for 10 years and started doing it with a line editor, so copying the first part of " ]" did not tax my skills too much. I like Knowledge (XXG) and joined to vote

4168:

minimize the fact that there is a grand total of FOUR patently "delete" votes. I move that the nominator be assigned with the task of removing the VfD notifications, and that interested parties be invited to constructively commence formation of the widely supported biblewiki project. My guess is

3963:

The problem with your viewpoint is that for both sides, it destroys the notion that we are having an intellectual discourse. Instead, we are all consciously or unconsciously voting based on our religious beliefs. On the contrary, I believe that the vast majority of the voters here are making votes

3048:

to see the kind of vacuous content lists eventually get filled with. Strike them all out. I'm trying to avoid wikistress over this, but barely succeeding. Try and imagine that this was a list of (for example) Buddhist scriptures. A very long and detailed list, with each paragraph having its own

2224:

You have 3 edits at the current time, 1 is the previous vote you mention, 1 the vote above, and 1 your comment above. You have 0 edits to articles 0 edits to other VFDs 0 experimental edits 0 edits to absolutely anything else. Further, your comments above feign a need to learn how to edit, despite

2212:

I am not a sockpuppet (and had to look up what the accusation meant). I just joined as a member, although I have been doing minor edits anonymously for a while. I found these verses on a random article link, voted on a previous VfD on this topic (my first vote), and was sent a message asking me to

4411:

The value of this is simply to see which of those alternative votes is the favoured outcome. I.e. in the event of the merge/transwiki/keep/delete votes not having a clear consensus, which is favoured by these more ambiguous votes. From the above, it is clear that, after keep, it is merge, and the

3909:

Systemic bias probably accounts for the lack of comparable articles on the Koran or other similar books. Commentaries on the Koran are less likely to be understood or read by English speakers, because they are not in the language and because fewer English speakers are Muslim. This is what I would

2742:

You should leave your vote, but it will probably be discounted by the closing admin. There is nothing preventing you from commenting, but votes from users with under 200 edits, and less than 1 months edit history, are usually treated as suspect. While this unfortunately cuts out any newcomers, it

2236:

I am aware that I sent you a message to vote, but I did that to everyone else as well whose vote may have indicated that they supported Uncle G's proposal, of which only part covered the previous VfD, and thus they had to vote again, here, for it to cover all of his proposal,, and I wasn't paying

3847:

I wrote "something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism", and I'm sure you realize that it doesn't make any difference exactly which church somebody belongs to, as the significance lies in the opposition between a historical-critical analysis of the biblical texts and one primarily serving to

2504:

This is a very useful resource to have for people who are reading the Bible. Christian or not, the Bible is a very key part of western culture. Also, a series of articles like this for every single Bible verse is easy enough to do; there are many Bible commentaries that cover every single last

2320:

If sockpuppets are such a problem, why not introduce the Wiki equivalent of the franchise, i.e. in order to vote users must have a verifiable email address (which could still be kept secret), have had their user ID at least some minimum period of time (a month?) and have made a minimum number of

3513:

is for. I have mentioned this project at least 4 times in the last month when people raise the question of discussing a unified policy. It is informative that the WikiProject is still static, and no-one has joined it to discuss unified policy. Since this is the case, I am forced to question the

2377:

Basically, I asked everyone to vote here who had voted a certain way on the other VfD simply because their vote appeared to be for a suggestion (Uncle G's) that actually covered more than just that VfD, so if they wished their indicated wishes at that VFD to be carried out in full, it would be

1675:

Merge, but let's slow down. Our naming conventions require that articles be at their most common names, and most of the episodes in the life of Christ have standard names. These are where people would expect to find them. I don't know them all (but can research them), but I know a few. I'm

3672:

Its a shame we can't split the english wikipedia into US and non-US versions (which would also be pointless - controversial articles would be edited by parties from both versions, since both can read and write english). Maybe this will cease being an issue when Spanish becomes the US national

1198:, which had 14 votes to keep, 19 votes to merge, 2 votes to keep/merge, and 8 votes to delete (+1 to transwiki). This was declared to have failed to reach consensus by the closing admin (although the delete votes and merge votes are effectively the same thing, making a 2:1 majority to merge). 3964:

based on a rational assessment of the issues, perhaps informed by different notions of what is encyclopedic and so on. I think an individual can come to a rational conclusion regardless of his race or religion; I think a group can come to a rational conclusion regardless of its demographics.

3371:

intact. My first-pass approximation of criteria for notability would be: a) there is substantial disagreement among scholars about the importance, wording or meaning of the particular verse b) the verse introduces an important person or place for the first time c) the verse involves a direct

2025:

em all. Biblical verses are part of an notable and well-established body of belief. Please be advised that I intend to vote keep for all mass nominations of articles as I do not have the time or inclination to look at each article. Mass nominations are not the best way to establish policy.

2672:

until such time as it can be "fleshed out" and shown to have meaningful content worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) article (isn't that the way things work in general all over Knowledge (XXG) in any case?) Or maybe it's just a case of legitimate stub articles. Please do not rush to judgment!

3204:

As it stands, there are too many articles on which to vote. It's not reasonable to expect people to read dozens and dozens of articles, even short ones, for a single VfD. If you want to create a consensus for individual articles, create a policy consensus discussion. Something like

2429:. A single VfD page, while far better than dozens of individual VfD pages, is not the proper way to dispose of such a large number of articles. As I have said a few times now, start a policy consensus discussion, so that we can get down to principles, rather than articles. 4179:

I.e. I put their individuality up for deletion. Merge, transwiki, and delete votes are all agreeing that they should not be individual. There needs to be consensus as to whether they should exist seperately in wikipedia (rather than eslewhere - e.g. WikiBooks) or not.

2986:

Actually, that was me shooting myself in the head and the toe at the same time. (This is easy with your foot in your mouth, by the way.) The refactor I apologised for was the same one that pushed this comment down, if I understand your objection. I blame the drugs.

3910:

describe as systemic bias, stemming from exogenous factors like the allocation of research by languages, etc. For the enwiki, creating articles on the Koran is simply harder. The Wikiproject, by advertising and finding qualified people, can help remedy this problem.

1978:

as important literature with a large corpus of accumulated commentary, much of which is notable in itself. SimonP does excellent work on all these articles. Although there may be some possibilities for merging, I don't think this is the right place to discuss that.

1460:

Somthing needs to be done, I agree not every verse should have its own article, I am not sure an on-going edit war is the right spirit for me to weigh in with. Waiting for a more neutral and level headed forum where both sides agree before its put to public vote.

2141:

I originally voted to merge on the Matthew 1 verses VfD, but having read most of the articles in question now, I think they are encyclopedic, neutral (or at least represent most points of view) and I learned things from most of them. If we can have pages on each

34:

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

2233:, and a feigned lack of knowledge which nevertheless indicates that you know that users can have messages sent to them. Indeed, your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour. 4407:

This second count - "overlapping totals" - includes each part of such votes, i.e. they overlap. A "transwiki or keep" vote is here converted to a "transwiki" vote and a "keep" vote, etc. Note that, as mentioned, some people's votes are thus counted in two

3428:

SimonP's behaviour is to instantly revert anything which reduces the content in his articles. Therefore merging the articles and dealing with the fallout without any consensus that the articles should not exist seperately is unfortunately not an option.

1566:

them all; there has been an enormous amount of commentary on individual Bible verses in the last two thousand years, much of it of encyclopedic value, and I think it's best organized at the verse level. Since we're not paper I think it's the way to go.

3320:

That's the best option I've heard yet. There's no way this VfD can hope to accomplish what it wants to, and looking through all these listed articles and proposals just makes my head swim. I feel sorry for whatever poor admin has to close this monster.

3630:

Note that on another Knowledge (XXG) (the Interlingua wikipedia), this came to a discussion, and it was found that individiual verses of the Bible were not encyclopedic. I don't know if that'll count as precedent in the English wikipedia, however.

3372:

quotation from a major person or entity d) there is any sect which bases its differentiation on the verse e) the verse's text is commonly (or was historically) used outside of biblical context (e.g. "eye for an eye", "turn the other cheek", etc.) -

1518:. While I would be open to people merging some of these, with 100+ verses up for deletion I think that a blanket keep is the best idea and if people want to be bold and merge smaller articles that are part of small passages then they can do so. 3093:

is the right move here. This is so clearly an annotation project! What it's going to do is reproduce the text, and discuss various interpretations of it. That's exactly what an annotation project is, and there is a section of Wikibooks called

2975:

This move also seems to be inspired by a desire to change the flow of conversation for the reader, and render comments by those opposed to the merge far less coherent. At this point, I simply must join those calling for the invalidation of this

3069:

Some of these deserve merging; no question. Some of them don't, so I oppose the proposal as a whole. Each scripture article should stand or fall on its own merits, and although scriptures aren't automatically notable, some have had an impact

3058:

I take it that all those voting merge have considered each of the specific merge proposals before them and agree that in each and every instance this is the most appropriate merge?? Gosh, what a lot of though must be put into every vote.

1598:- this is too many changes to reasonably evaluate all at once, each merge/deletion needs to be considered on its own merits, and I think many of these verses are notable enough that they should have be organized as separate articles. -- 4163:

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you. The vote is CLEARLY opposed to deletion, therefore the VfD should be closed. There is a great deal of support for transwikiing to a currently non-existent project, but that does

2259:

page lead sentence). As a new user, I can see why people complain about nobody joining if this is what my simple votes get. I repeat, I know about messages from other users because I was sent one, turns out by my new friend

1757:

has a significant amount of information of art historical importance that cannot be merged easily in any suggested plan. Please note that the artwork in question pertains to the letters of the text, not the birth of Jesus.

3660:

nod* So it's probable that the English wiki is going to have a full copy of the Bible on it, but the book of Mormon, the Koran, the Talmud, et multiple cetera, will be 'not notable enough' for Knowledge (XXG). :/ Joy.

2906:

Please note that the above rationale was amputated from my vote. It was not a separate comment, and I consider this an abuse of the VfD process which explicitly states that the rationale should go with the vote, and is

2303:

It's a bit like the old witchcraft test 'if they admit it - burn them. If they don't - well then they are obviously witches since witches always lie!'. Once the accusation is made you're damned. However, in fairness to

1379:. I shudder to think of the consfusion that would be wrought by articles on every bible verse. This has nothing to do with notability (not in my view a criterion for deletion) and everything to do with coherence. 3347:

Create category pages (as suggested by this proposal) for major events and storylines, referencing the notable verse articles where appropriate, but otherwise providing simple capsule synopses of the previous

3354:

For all non-notable articles with no remaining references, put up individual VfDs, referencing the project article, which should describe the whole process, and the criteria for non-notable biblical verses.

1662:

To quickly note the basis for a keep: substantial volume of scholarly work on Gospel verses, extreme importance of the text as a whole, etc. Notabiltiy is significant and these articles are well-referenced.

2730:

Hmmm... I believe the policy says something about "mutual respect" and welcoming newcommers. I'll remove my vote if it's not allowed. Anyways it's not a democracy, so it might be better to just add support:

3124:, and has some interestingly controvercial wording). WP might xfer to the Wikibooks articles as authoritative (if they were), but ultimately, I think the major verses need to have encyclopedic coverage. - 1805:

after looking at a few of these articles, it seems that there is enough to say that's encylopedic about many individual Bible verses. (To be fair though, I'll say that may have a pro-Bible bias and this

2995:

Ok, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I retract my comments which were based on rash assumptions about the move that I could have resolved for myself by looking at the history. Thanks for explaining -

2518:

I do agree. But that is, in a way, my point. This is an encyclopedia, not a resource for people who are reading the Bible. That would be a Bible commentary or concordance, which belongs in WikiBooks.

3387:

and merge them. If you meet opposition on the pages themselves, you can sort it out there, not here where it is utterly inappropriate. You don't want them deleted so why are you having this process?

1458:

The exact merge logistics should be a separate voteing process and not confused with this one, unfortanatly its going to force many voters to vote Keep who dont agree with the details of the merge :(

3557:

It appears that neither one of us has joined the WikiProject at this point. You have nominated all of these articles for Deletion or Merging on VfD. Please take the first step on WikiProject:Bible.

1748:- The Bible is the single most important document in the history of western civilization. There has been more commentary on the Bible that any other work. (In other debates on this subject, the 4188:

N.b. The technical expertise required to transwiki is to add a {{move to WikiBooks}} tag to the article. Someone who is able to transwiki it will them perform the transwiki after a week or so.

2251:

page. As usual I forgot to sign in when I did it, then did so with a later edit, so you can check my home ISP number and see I have made other edits (like the description of the photo on the

1317:, VfD is about deleting pages, not debating contested merges. There is obviously a need for a discussion over how these verses should be formatted, but the proper venue for this would be at 3727:

As I see it, the minority that's creating problems here is not the one that attempts to put the Bible and religion into absolutely everything it possibly can. It's the one that attempts to

2701:

and Uncle G has preserved treatment of topics. If his divisions are not perfect they can be altered later to the satisfaction of the community (in a policy consensus if it comes to that).

2733:

The division of verses is quite arbitrary and wasn't originally part of the bible anyways. Each being so short, separate entries turns Knowledge (XXG) into an annotated list of quotes.

2668:

but only if the verse can be supported with an actual article then fine, keep it, but if the verse is just left "hanging in the air" with nothing or hardly anything to it, it should be

2566:

Valuable knowledge for people who are interested in the bible verses. The merge/keep decisions should be made by the primary editors, not people who may be unfamiliar with the subject

2453:. I don't see how the existence of these verses in Knowledge (XXG) could be a problem. Note we have articles on single TV show episodes - are they more important than Bible verses? 2237:

careful attention to sockpuppetry at the time. What is notable is that you made edits between those two times, and you still have 0 edits not related to this VFD or the prior one.

1542:

N.b. for those that don't quite understand the context of the first sentence, Allen 3 was the admin who closed the Matthew 1:verses VfD and declared there to have been no concensus

1399:. Encyclopedias are about context. Individual verses out of context are bumperstickers, like single lines of Shakespeare or anything. This does violence to the writers' intent. -- 3457:

could refer to the Matthew 4 temptation in the wilderness, or to the much later temptation of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was tempted not to accept crucifixion.

614: 1768:

there is no valid reason for any of these to be deleted. The very fact that all Bible verse pages are being lumped into one vfd entry simply proves that this vfd is ridiculous.

1652:. The merits of the articles aside, this is an inappropriate nomination as VFD on some of these just closed DAYS ago. Nor is VFD the place to discuss details of planned merges. 3743:

Note that I am suggesting to merge the articles. This is quite different from eliminating them. Please read carefully rather than jump to conclusions that are easy for you.

3584:

Moreover, the survey regards the inclusion of source text in Bible chapters, and has nothing to do with the nature or the existence of articles on individual Bible verses.

3754:

If I wanted to see Christian people saying "they can't take our faith away" and otherwise acting like martyrs, I'd read the letters column of our local freebie newspaper.

2792: 3531:. I, for one, haven't seen everything you've written, or followed every link you've bracketed, so I've missed most, if not all, of the four other times you've mentioned 3183:

Note that this is a VfD. Those voting merge are not automatically agreeing to the proposal above, but simply agreeing that the articles should be merged. Those voting

3300: 2949: 2886: 1330: 1195: 2321:

edits (10?). My guess is this has been all discussed before, so this will be my last word on the VfD page. Sorry for any confusion my well intentioned vote caused.

3848:

uphold the dogma of the church in question or of Christianity in general. The articles we are discussing here are clearly in the former camp. Don't you agree? --

3548:

haven't joined the WikiProject, and nor has anyone else. It needs members to have discussion. The members listed have been there for ages and seem to have faded.

2610:

I have been discussing the ambiguity (voting to keep in general but merge into larger units) of the above vote with the above user, and they have said (see my -

2278:". I would say this is classic sockpuppet paranoia. Amazingly enough, both sockpuppets and real users deny that they are sockpuppets when challenged, so it's a 1727:

end up going with names like this, we'll probably want to find some source that can be agreed to be reasonably authoritative and go with that for consistency. -

2104:

Passages from the Bible are notable and have a high degree of cultural and historical significance. Organizing content by chapter/verse makes perfect sense.

1340: 1343: 3074:

that implies that they are. If an encyclopedic articles can be written about a verse, it should be. For instance, much theory about the trinity rests on

3045: 2911:. By moving my rationale away from the voting section, other voters are encouraged not to consider the reasons for previous votes. At best this vote is 1334: 3523:

Then lead us in posting there! I agree that that is a much more appropriate venue for this discussion, but I only see one edit that you've made to the

3527:. Since you have started this discussion, please start it again in a more proper venue. Moreover, instead of impugning the motives of others, please 1326: 1299:

My feelings on this have not changed, I'm trying to embrace the need for consensus. I underestimated the depth of feeling this topic would engender.

1709:"Jesus' Appearances" = "Manifestations of Christ" or ? (another term that I've forgotten, but the catch phrases at the top of a KJV should tell us). 2908: 3102:

has done a good job of dividing the first couple of books of Matthew into subject headings... is he, or anyone else, prepared to do that work for

1337: 2578:. Gadzooks. There are plenty of online bibles around and it serves no encylopedic purpose to reproduce mostly unnotable individual verses here. 2756:

Okay, that makes more sense. I've seen those allegations thrown persistently. In that case, is anyone else voting here from an ISP in Taiwan?

1877:

to Wikibooks or a Wikibible or whatever, leaving appropriate interwiki links and redirects to general pages here on wikipedia. Failing that,

4016: 3623: 1307: 1924:. Individual Bible verses really aren't encyclopedic on their own (with few exceptions), they are best addressed in the context of others. - 3694:

Sounds like for all its purported "freedom of religion", the USA has become the most fundamentally Christian country in the western world.

942: 1418:

above). This is a poorly conceived proposal. Some of these consist only of various translations of the scripture; they should be removed.

1420:

I think it is slightly abusive to categorize every scripture except John 3:16 as NN, since they vary and no hard and fast rule can apply.

3333:

Here's an alternate proposal. It's more work, but a) I'm willing to help and b) it would eliminate complaints over major VfDs like this

3608: 3524: 3155:

below that this would often take the form of reference in another article, rather than an article specifically devoted to the verse.)

3358:

The above VfDs may be too numerous. An alternate way to do this would be to group them into related verses and VfD 10 or so at a time.

17: 4383:

n.b. this second grouping includes overlaps (e.g. "merge OR transwiki" = "merge" x 1 + "transwiki" x 1), so some votes counted twice

2276:

your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour.

1608:

Although I generally support the idea of some restructuring here, I strongly feel VfD is not the forum to resolve this, per SimonP.

4453: 3906:

My reason for putting "systemic bias" in scare quotes is that I don't think any systemic bias exists that is relevant to this vote.

2893:

I would vote yes for a couple of the proposals, but this change is too sweeping, and some of those verses are the basis for entire

4398:

What was done with those "Merge or Keep" votes now? And the "Transwiki or Keep"? I must question the value of this "analysis."

4134:

While the result is fairly clear, we need to wait until a user who has time to remove over a hundred VfD headers comes along. -

4006:

There are 100,000+ aren't there. So that would increase Knowledge (XXG)'s size by about 1/4 at the current number of articles.

606:

These numerous articles are not intrinsically noteworthy, and should be coalesced into bigger articles such as those listed at

4432: 4141:

It still ought to be possible to closed the VfD, and even to announce the result, before dealing with the articles themselves.

3282:

want) to resolve this complex issue. For all these reasons, I think this vote is out of order. Of course, I also believe a

3206: 812: 4250:

but not as outlined above. The 31,273 Biblical verses are not individually important enough to deserve seperate articles. --

3532: 3528: 3510: 2390: 1318: 3218:

Comment: Any verse that has an exceptional doctrinal significance (e.g. the verse that is the rationale for the concept of

2050:. This is not what VfD is for. The merging proposal is interesting, but it should be discussed in the appropriate place. 4067:

While the import of specific articles on specific verses may be called into question, this blanket delete is overzealous.

1181: 1120: 1003: 751: 607: 23: 2038:

as suggested above. Individual Bible verses are not inherently notable outside of the context in which they are occur.

2282:. Perhaps in future -Ril- could just cite the edit history and let the closing admin decide how much to weigh the vote. 2188: 2147: 1753:

west. Of no other dococument can such a claim be made.) Please not that if the consensus is to delete, or merge, that

1064: 4439: 4416: 4402: 4390: 4254: 4224: 4192: 4183: 4158: 4145: 4100: 4084: 4071: 4023: 4010: 4001: 3952: 3939: 3891: 3852: 3838: 3825: 3805: 3771: 3747: 3722: 3711: 3677: 3665: 3653: 3635: 3625: 3588: 3579: 3570: 3561: 3552: 3539: 3518: 3500: 3487: 3474: 3461: 3433: 3411: 3395: 3376: 3290: 3268: 3251: 3235: 2999: 2874: 2853: 2838: 2795: 2760: 2751: 2737: 2705: 2689: 2677: 2626: 2570: 2554: 2541: 2522: 2513: 2480: 2445: 2433: 2421: 2406: 2397: 2382: 2372: 2344: 2315: 2286: 2241: 2207: 2178: 2133: 2120: 2108: 2096: 2075: 2063: 2042: 2030: 2017: 1983: 1966: 1951: 1939: 1928: 1902: 1888: 1869: 1846: 1834: 1797: 1782: 1738: 1718: 1680: 617:

as they contain between them the full biblical text, which is already present in several translations and languages at

51: 1495:

as per Uncle G. While the matter on a large scale is encyclopedic, separate articles for every verse is Biblecruft.

1322: 3351:

Find all pages that reference non-notable verses and, where appropriate, move the reference to the category pages.

1036: 4056: 3968: 3785: 3621: 3442: 2720: 1794: 1667: 1656: 1305: 1112: 4452:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

3040:

I reckon they actually deserve. If a particular verse has encyclopedic merit, write a nice fat article about

2393:. While we need to be vigilant about sockpuppetry, it must be done with a measure of balance and compassion. 995: 865: 4053: 3965: 3782: 3439: 2717: 2027: 1688:"The Visit of the Magi" = "The adoration of the Magi" (n.b. the lower case for terms beyond the initial one) 1664: 1653: 1618:. Although a more comprehensive policy should be set, this proposal is the best available, so I vote merge. 1580:

per Uncle G's suggestion. It's the best compromise between keeping them separately and deleting them all. --

1272:, this is an inapropriate use of vfd, and comments are being inapropriately moved away from the discussion. 3391:

all the articles in question, obviously. Do not relist them. Just do the merges and deal with the fallout.

2744: 3470:

If that is a vote, could you possibly move it to the votes section to make it clear to the closing admin?

3248: 1587: 2340:, and a minimum of 200 edits. Opinions on the matter vary however, although these are the most standard. 1779: 3948:

However, if they were in charge of marketing for "cat foods inc.", then it would be a different matter.

3480: 3063: 3021: 2312: 1360: 743: 4251: 3818:, voted "delete", claiming that these articles inevitably would be dominated by "atheist 'academics'". 3209:

would cover the scope, and we wouldn't have to go through this discussion on the VfD page every week.

2464:

The question is not are they more important to you, but are they more notable to knowledge. I.e. does

2369: 1936: 4068: 3914:

capable of rationally assessing an article and determining if it should be kept or deleted or merged.

3616: 3050: 2988: 2970: 2924: 2786: 1791: 1769: 1631: 1523: 1300: 1290: 3649:

such a procedure for issues stemming from systemic bias predominantly affecting only one wikipedia.

3078:(though I notice it doesn't have an article). Obviously, though, some of these need to be merged. -- 2092:. individual bible verses not automatically notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a biblical concordance. 3535:. Now that I know that it exists, I await a revival of this discussion at that more fitting venue. 2039: 1865: 1706:"The Ressurrection of Jesus" = "The Resurrection" (capital letter because it is a pronominal event) 1571: 1173: 46: 3416:

Yes, that was a comment. I'm sure the closing admin can figure out what's happening. -- Grace Note

3090: 2757: 2734: 2702: 1472: 4208: 4173: 4129: 3991: 3307: 2816: 2454: 2418: 1380: 703: 73:

All Individual Bible verses are/are not automatically noteworthy enough to have separate articles

618: 3106:?? The whole thing just does not belong here, and would be a FANTASTIC addition to Wikibooks. 2213:

vote on this VfD. (I don't know how to send a message to another User, hence this edit back to

1947:. Individual articles need to be judged on their own merits for VfD. Those listed are keep. 1700:"Beginning Jesus' Ministry" = ? There is a term for it that's commonplace, but I don't know it. 1390: 3339:

Notable verses that have encyclopedic information in their articles (define criteria up-front)

3244: 2583: 2192: 2151: 1557: 1486: 1370: 3121: 3060: 3018: 2825: 2653: 2599: 2309: 2184: 2143: 2130: 1885: 1357: 4218: 4097: 3392: 2862: 2850: 2782: 2686: 2539: 2072: 2051: 1900: 1619: 1519: 2534:. These are not just copies of a primary source, but include high-quality commentary. – 4142: 3887:, but does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is what Knowledge (XXG) is. 3585: 3576: 3558: 3536: 3210: 2789: 2631:

I am not sure that accurately represents my view: I think it is very hard to determine

2567: 2430: 2364: 2322: 2265: 2248: 2218: 2155: 1860: 1585: 1568: 1462: 43: 3834:

Urm, Wesley is Greek Orthodox. I'm not really sure how that counts as fundamentalist?

4205: 4170: 4126: 3998: 3987: 3936: 3768: 3708: 3662: 3632: 3497: 3322: 3304: 3156: 3107: 3079: 2813: 2506: 2093: 2060: 2012: 1925: 1915: 1814: 1759: 1694:"The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist" = "The commission" and "Baptism of Christ" 1509: 1476: 1433: 1423: 3479:

I think Uncle G's choices are due to guesswork as to what the titles of articles at

3098:

that no one is using!! I really don't get it. Another big issue is that, although

4113:

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS THIS VfD STILL OPEN ELEVEN DAYS AFTER IT WAS OPENED?!?!

4049: 3849: 3822: 3099: 2871: 2579: 2394: 2105: 2084: 1980: 1754: 1599: 1124: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 991: 987: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 808: 804: 800: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 625: 510: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 3496:

I still think we need to hammer out a unified policy on individual bible verses.

2006:

merge will substantially improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of individual verses.

2328:

The current equivalent of what you suggest is generally considered to be 1 month

1325:

not here. Also within the last two weeks we have had two VfDs on this same issue

4135: 3983: 3815: 3688: 3458: 3373: 3368: 3367:

The end result would be roughly the same, but would leave notable articles like

3232: 3164: 3152: 3144: 3125: 3117: 3049:

article. Do you imagine that would receive much support when it reached VfD?

2996: 2979: 2957: 2916: 2898: 2649: 2595: 2510: 2493: 2465: 2442: 2200: 2117: 1882: 1824: 1749: 1728: 1715: 1677: 1534: 1400: 1347: 1263: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 470: 466: 462: 458: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 3195:

are not, they simply agree that the articles should not be completely seperate.

3163:

same sense. You are comparing actual apples to religious verses about oranges.

4436: 4413: 4399: 4387: 4221: 4189: 4180: 4155: 4081: 4042: 4020: 4015:

It would increase wikipedia's article count by 1/4, not its size. But luckily

4007: 3949: 3888: 3835: 3802: 3744: 3719: 3674: 3650: 3567: 3549: 3515: 3484: 3471: 3430: 3408: 3287: 3265: 3261: 3198: 3009:(I second the above objection). This proposal is also too crude. I agree that 2936: 2847: 2835: 2748: 2623: 2611: 2551: 2535: 2519: 2477: 2403: 2379: 2358: 2341: 2305: 2283: 2271: 2261: 2256: 2238: 2230: 2226: 2214: 2204: 2175: 1963: 1897: 1843: 1609: 1545: 1415: 1273: 1254: 1232: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1108: 600: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 3718:

DavidH would you care to provide any evidence for these accusations of bias?

2125:

Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need articles about every single verse in the Bible.

4150:

While the result is fairly clear, the result that is clear is that there is

3219: 2969:, and its current position is wildly innapropriate (I was not responding to 2674: 1996: 1948: 1643: 1581: 1442: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 596: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 3310: 3299:

plan. However, it may be worthwhile to open up a discussion and add it to

3132: 2389:

This is perhaps a good time to point out the Knowledge (XXG) tradition of

3923: 3781:

does not seem to me the sort of "systemic bias" we should be addressing.

3755: 3695: 3075: 2357:

So if I understand the above discussion correctly this is what happened:

2279: 2007: 1811: 1496: 3566:

I already have - I added the related note on the WikiProject talk page.

3143:. Does this mean we should begin mass deleting our biology articles? - 3136: 2252: 3861:

Wesley's edits don't really suggest a fundamentalist attitude either.

3575:

I seek a discussion, not a poll. I seek a consensus, not a majority.

1245:

Please leave comments in the comment section for clarity of the vote.

3514:

motives of those suggesting this must be discussed elsewhere first.

1356:

this proposal is not well thought through - see my comments below --

1194:

Note, the Matthew 1 verses were already as subject of a prior VfD -

3405:

Please note that this is the comments section not the votes section

3383:

I don't understand this vote. If you want to merge these articles,

4038: 2614:- talk page) that the above vote is to be understood as a vote to 1226:

are not, they simply agree that there should be some sort of merge

755: 3342:

Non-notable verses that simply describe the language of the verse

2154:, why not each verse (or other unit) in various sacred writings? 4446:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3189:

would be those who agree to the above merge. Those voting only

1333:(no consensus, plurality in favour of merging), not to mention 1220:

would be those who agree to the above merge. Those voting only

1201:

To avoid the problem of consensus not being clear, please vote

4265:

The exact totals so far (as of 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)) are

2885:

Please avoid regurgitating the discussion previously held at

3982:

Who wants to make an article on every little section of the

3483:

refer to. They look like they probably need tweaking a bit.

2247:

on something on which I had an opinion. I have now set up a

2129:

any useful content, basically as per UncleG's suggestion. -

4107: 3438:

Disputed merges should be discussed on article talk pages.

3140: 1209:

if you do not feel the verses deserve individual articles.

4198:

That said, I still think it's ridiculous that the VfD is

3997:

I'll vote Keep on every one since we now have precedent.

1691:"Jesus' Escape to Egypt" = "The flight of the Holy Family" 1485:

as above. It is relevant, but perhaps not encyclopedic. --

24:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses

3015:

automatically noteworthy enough to have seperate articles

2550:

But wikipedia isn't a commentary. It is an encyclopedia.

4080:

N.b. it's a blanket merge rather than a blanket delete.

3875:

Having the articles individually serves the purpose of

3819: 3731:

the Bible and religion from everything it possibly can.

2468:

merit discussion in an encyclopedia. Note that I wrote

2195:, are seperate articles is because they are noteworthy 1697:"The Temptation of Jesus" = "The temptations of Christ" 615:

Knowledge (XXG):Don't include copies of primary sources

4213:

Wikibible would be a book amongst Wikibooks. There is

3044:. Lists are bad for Knowledge (XXG). Have a look at 2808:

the articles, it would be a nuisance to the reader to

1369:. All verses within a well known text are notable. -- 4431:

Some parties have opened up a further discussion at

3795:If we wish to be seen as unbiased, we must address 3301:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus

2950:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

2887:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

2116:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a library! 1331:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

1196:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

1190:

the remaining verses in a similarly suitable manner

2644:will satisfy me. I am opposed to deletion of the 624:The specific merge suggested is that proposed by 4456:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3264:was not being threatened whatsoever by this VfD 2834:. Verses need context to make complete sense. - 2308:, it does seem like a common assumption here. -- 3231:the lot of them. Merging them is much better. 2255:Germany page or adding the word chemist to the 1676:signing here and at the end of the list below. 1858:. I'm convinced we should have a wikibible. — 3131:I don't see why we can't have both projects. 2846:this should go on some related wiki project. 8: 1914:. Not suitable to keep every article above. 1327:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Matthew 1 2973:, but to the opening text in this section. 2909:perhaps more important than the vote itself 2368:and accuse him of being a sockpuppet. Wow. 67:This is a VfD concerning the principle that 1703:"Calling of the First Disciples" = ? ibid. 1412:Merge in some fashion other than the above 1346:other previous VfDs on this same issue. - 4045:, I'll gladly vote to keep them as well. 3028:I've changed my vote from the weak-kneed 1685:"The Birth of Jesus" = "The Incarnation" 4378:Don't have as individual articles x 44 3207:Knowledge (XXG):Individual Bible verses 3141:project dedicated to cataloging species 2923:Abject apologies. No Offense intended. 2505:Bible verse which are old enough to be 2402:Indeed - I truly pity the sockpuppets. 2332:to the VfD starting, or at least edits 4334:Don't have as individual articles x 34 4096:At first glance, looks pretty useful. 2956:proposal ended in lack of consensus. - 4217:a project there. I think it's called 3135:is vastly different from a page like 2935:this is an inappropriate use of VFD. 2716:This was the above user's 35th edit. 1881:in some form, as above or otherwise. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2229:without copying the whole signature 2170:previous edit - almost definitely a 943:Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist 2793:Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 4433:Knowledge (XXG):Merge/Bible verses 4019:, so that wouldn't matter anyway. 2948:the discussion previously held at 2071:as per George's commentary below. 1214:Note:this is a VfD. Those voting 1065:The Calling of the First Disciples 31: 3533:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible 3511:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible 3336:Categorize all verse pages into: 3116:pick a random example, let's say 2812:include the text of each verse. 2225:your ability to produce the edit 1319:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible 4375:Keep as individual articles x 35 4331:Keep as individual articles x 32 3011:All Individual Bible verses are 78:This VfD more directly concerns 4412:second favourite is transwiki. 4305:Merge, Transwiki, or Delete x 1 3286:result is all but inevitable. 1329:(strong consensus to keep) and 3331:Comment and alternate proposal 3303:, that's what it's there for. 2697:because the versus make sense 1778:for reasons already listed. -- 1123:, which is currently piped to 813:The Visit of the Magi to Jesus 754:, which is currently piped to 1: 3133:The Gospel of John: Chapter 1 1182:List of New Testament stories 1121:List of New Testament stories 1004:List of New Testament stories 752:List of New Testament stories 608:List of New Testament stories 38:The result of the debate was 4017:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper 2189:US Secretary of the Treasury 2148:US Secretary of the Treasury 1037:Beginning of Jesus' Ministry 4210:17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 4175:07:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 4138:04:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 4131:03:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 4110: 3994:08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC) 3691:02:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC) 3317:09:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 3260:I stated in the intro that 3096:THE ANNOTATED NEW TESTAMENT 3091:Wikibooks:The_New_Testament 2618:non-notable verses, but to 2325:14:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 2221:17:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 1554:Merge, Transwiki, or Delete 1473:Wikibooks:The_New_Testament 4473: 3325:09:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 3167:01:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC) 3034:I gave them before to the 2865:16:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 2818:20:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC) 2656:16:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC) 2602:20:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC) 2586:21:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC) 2496:22:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 2490:Strong Transwiki or Delete 2457:19:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 2268:23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 2158:00:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 2054:03:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC) 1999:15:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 1918:04:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 1393:at 9 July 2005 16:26 (UTC) 1323:Category talk:Bible verses 619:Wikisource:Religious texts 4440:08:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 4417:08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 4403:02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 4391:07:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4255:06:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 4225:17:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4193:07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4184:07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4159:06:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4146:05:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4101:08:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4085:07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 4072:23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 4059:17:36, 2005 July 18 (UTC) 4024:12:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 4011:11:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 4002:10:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 3971:21:21, 2005 July 15 (UTC) 3953:19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 3940:19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 3892:08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 3853:22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3839:22:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3826:20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3806:20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3788:18:44, 2005 July 15 (UTC) 3772:13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 3748:17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 3723:11:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3712:06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 3678:19:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 3666:11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 3654:22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 3636:12:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 3626:00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 3615:pending this discussion. 3589:21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 3580:01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 3571:19:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 3562:00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 3553:22:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 3540:05:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 3519:22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3501:22:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3488:19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3475:19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3462:16:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3445:16:18, 2005 July 11 (UTC) 3434:08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3412:08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3396:01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 3377:17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 3291:08:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 3269:11:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 3159:July 9, 2005 18:06 (UTC) 3147:July 9, 2005 17:57 (UTC) 3139:. We also have an entire 3000:16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 2963:This comment of mine was 2875:20:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 2854:03:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 2839:01:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 2828:22:02, 2005 July 18 (UTC) 2796:16:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 2761:20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 2752:19:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 2738:17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 2723:14:57, 2005 July 18 (UTC) 2706:12:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 2690:21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 2678:05:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 2627:21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 2571:16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 2555:11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 2542:11:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 2523:06:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 2514:00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 2481:22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 2446:05:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2434:05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2422:02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2407:19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 2398:18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 2383:19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 2373:17:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 2345:19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 2316:00:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 2287:00:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 2242:22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2208:01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2179:01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2134:23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2121:22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2109:21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2097:18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2076:06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2064:03:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2043:01:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2031:01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2018:16:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1984:11:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1967:11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1952:10:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1940:07:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1929:07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1903:04:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1889:01:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1817:20:56, July 9, 2005 (UTC) 1810:be influencing my vote.) 1772:20:18, July 9, 2005 (UTC) 1762:20:01, July 9, 2005 (UTC) 1659:19:58, 2005 July 9 (UTC) 1538:July 9, 2005 17:37 (UTC) 1113:The Resurrection of Jesus 52:09:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 4449:Please do not modify it. 3252:20:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 3236:20:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 3128:9 July 2005 17:23 (UTC) 3110:July 9, 2005 17:00 (UTC) 3024:9 July 2005 15:54 (UTC) 2960:9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC) 2919:9 July 2005 16:23 (UTC) 2747:created to sway a vote. 1870:23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1847:23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1835:21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1798:20:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1783:20:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1739:21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1719:19:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1681:19:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 1670:20:07, 2005 July 9 (UTC) 1479:July 9, 2005 16:53 (UTC) 1350:July 9, 2005 15:54 (UTC) 1235:9 July 2005 14:58 (UTC) 4308:Transwiki or Delete x 1 4299:Merge and transwiki x 1 4219:Wikibooks:New Testament 4048:Unsigned vote above by 3213:9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC) 3201:9 July 2005 17:01 (UTC) 3104:every book in the Bible 3082:9 July 2005 16:48 (UTC) 3066:9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC) 3053:9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC) 2991:9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC) 2982:9 July 2005 16:36 (UTC) 2939:9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC) 2927:9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC) 2901:9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) 2441:per my comments below. 1646:9 July 2005 19:23 (UTC) 1636:9 July 2005 19:18 (UTC) 1612:9 July 2005 18:53 (UTC) 1602:9 July 2005 18:09 (UTC) 1592:9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC) 1574:9 July 2005 18:02 (UTC) 1560:9 July 2005 17:43 (UTC) 1548:9 July 2005 17:46 (UTC) 1526:9 July 2005 17:25 (UTC) 1512:9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) 1489:9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC) 1465:9 July 2005 16:46 (UTC) 1445:9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC) 1436:9 July 2005 16:42 (UTC) 1426:9 July 2005 16:40 (UTC) 1414:(per message posted by 1403:9 July 2005 16:35 (UTC) 1383:9 July 2005 16:23 (UTC) 1373:9 July 2005 16:15 (UTC) 1363:9 July 2005 15:56 (UTC) 1293:9 July 2005 15:48 (UTC) 1276:9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC) 1266:9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) 1257:9 July 2005 14:58 (UTC) 996:The Temptation of Jesus 57:Individual Bible verses 4364:Keep (conditional) x 1 4320:Keep (conditional) x 1 4302:Merge or Transwiki x 2 3509:That is probably what 1961:USER HAS ALREADY VOTED 1422:(see comments below)-- 866:Jesus' Escape to Egypt 4427:comments continued... 4311:Transwiki or Keep x 1 3481:List of Bible stories 2952:, and not that that, 2778:Merge per Ril/Uncle G 1119:link for the same in 750:link for the same in 3295:I support Uncle G's 945:(or some such title) 868:(or some such title) 815:(or some such title) 4261:vote summary so-far 3870:historical-critical 3455:Temptation of Jesus 3151:here. (Agree with 3085:I still think that 2642:merge with redirect 2391:assuming good faith 2166:the above user has 4454:undeletion request 4344:Overlapping Totals 4054:Christopher Parham 3966:Christopher Parham 3783:Christopher Parham 3611:. Changed vote to 3440:Christopher Parham 2897:of christianity. - 2718:Christopher Parham 2666:Keep (conditional) 2197:in their own right 2028:Capitalistroadster 1665:Christopher Parham 1654:Christopher Parham 1616:Merge and redirect 1188:Merge and redirect 1174:Jesus' Appearances 1131:Merge and redirect 1070:Merge and redirect 1042:Merge and redirect 1010:Merge and redirect 949:Merge and redirect 872:Merge and redirect 819:Merge and redirect 762:Merge and redirect 744:The Birth of Jesus 709:Merge and redirect 704:Genealogy of Jesus 633:Merge and redirect 613:They also violate 4314:Merge or keep x 2 4119: 4118: 3529:assume good faith 3072:as a single verse 2992: 2954:much more limited 2928: 2193:list of asteroids 2152:list of asteroids 2015: 2010: 1309: 49: 22:(Redirected from 4464: 4451: 4115: 4108: 3934: 3931: 3928: 3872:but they aren't. 3766: 3763: 3760: 3739:unsigned comment 3706: 3703: 3700: 3619: 3315: 3243:. John 11:35. -- 3122:John the Baptist 2985: 2922: 2474:bible commentary 2185:Governor of Ohio 2144:Governor of Ohio 2013: 2008: 1832: 1736: 1634: 1629: 1624: 1589: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1303: 1298: 47: 27: 4472: 4471: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4447: 4429: 4263: 4111: 4069:Amicuspublilius 3932: 3929: 3926: 3801:systemic bias. 3764: 3761: 3758: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3617: 3312: 3186:merge per above 3051:Aaron Brenneman 2989:Aaron Brenneman 2971:Aaron Brenneman 2925:Aaron Brenneman 2915:irregular.... - 2883: 1852:Merge per above 1828: 1770:freestylefrappe 1732: 1632: 1625: 1620: 1590: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1301: 1291:Aaron Brenneman 1241: 1217:merge per above 591:Note. This VfD 64: 59: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4470: 4468: 4459: 4458: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4409: 4385: 4384: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4376: 4373: 4366: 4365: 4362: 4359: 4358:Transwiki x 10 4356: 4353: 4350: 4346: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4329: 4322: 4321: 4318: 4315: 4312: 4309: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4288: 4284: 4283: 4282:Vote breakdown 4279: 4278: 4275: 4271: 4270: 4262: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4186: 4121: 4120: 4117: 4116: 4104: 4103: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4075: 4074: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3943: 3942: 3916: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3873: 3862: 3856: 3855: 3842: 3841: 3829: 3828: 3809: 3808: 3790: 3789: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3751: 3750: 3741: 3733: 3732: 3725: 3715: 3714: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3669: 3668: 3639: 3638: 3628: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3582: 3504: 3503: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3477: 3465: 3464: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3424: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3399: 3398: 3380: 3379: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3352: 3349: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3340: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3293: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3255: 3254: 3238: 3227:just flat out 3215: 3214: 3202: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3112: 3111: 3083: 3067: 3055: 3054: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2983: 2941: 2940: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2903: 2902: 2882: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2866: 2856: 2841: 2829: 2819: 2798: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2743:also cuts out 2731: 2725: 2724: 2709: 2708: 2692: 2680: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2622:notable ones. 2605: 2604: 2587: 2573: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2545: 2544: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2498: 2497: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2459: 2458: 2448: 2436: 2424: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2365:User:Ruhrfisch 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2269: 2249:User:Ruhrfisch 2234: 2181: 2160: 2159: 2136: 2123: 2111: 2099: 2087: 2081:Merge or keep. 2078: 2066: 2055: 2045: 2040:Kaibabsquirrel 2033: 2020: 2000: 1986: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1955: 1954: 1942: 1931: 1919: 1905: 1891: 1872: 1849: 1839:Atheist votes 1837: 1818: 1800: 1785: 1780:Idont Havaname 1773: 1763: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1647: 1637: 1613: 1603: 1593: 1586: 1575: 1561: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1527: 1513: 1490: 1480: 1466: 1446: 1437: 1427: 1404: 1394: 1384: 1374: 1364: 1351: 1311: 1310: 1295: 1294: 1277: 1267: 1258: 1240: 1237: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1128: 1067: 1039: 1007: 946: 869: 816: 759: 706: 76: 75: 63: 60: 58: 55: 32: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4469: 4457: 4455: 4450: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4438: 4434: 4426: 4418: 4415: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4401: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4389: 4382: 4377: 4374: 4371: 4370: 4368: 4367: 4363: 4360: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4342: 4336: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4326: 4324: 4323: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4307: 4304: 4301: 4298: 4296:Transwiki x 3 4295: 4292: 4289: 4286: 4285: 4281: 4280: 4276: 4273: 4272: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4260: 4256: 4253: 4249: 4246: 4245: 4226: 4223: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4211: 4209: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4191: 4187: 4185: 4182: 4177: 4176: 4174: 4172: 4167: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4137: 4133: 4132: 4130: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4114: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4102: 4099: 4095: 4092: 4091: 4086: 4083: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4073: 4070: 4066: 4063: 4058: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4033: 4025: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4000: 3996: 3995: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3970: 3967: 3962: 3961: 3954: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3941: 3938: 3924: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3912: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3893: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3864:The articles 3863: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3854: 3851: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3824: 3820: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3800: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3784: 3779: 3778: 3773: 3770: 3756: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3742: 3740: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3716: 3713: 3710: 3696: 3693: 3692: 3690: 3685: 3679: 3676: 3671: 3670: 3667: 3664: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3629: 3627: 3624: 3622: 3620: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3605: 3590: 3587: 3583: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3517: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3494: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3449: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3406: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3397: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3375: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3357: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3346: 3341: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3332: 3329: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3316: 3309: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3292: 3289: 3285: 3280: 3277:I second the 3276: 3275: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3239: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3196: 3191: 3190: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3166: 3161: 3160: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3129: 3127: 3123: 3120:, introduces 3119: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3065: 3062: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3033: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3023: 3020: 3016: 3014: 3001: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2990: 2984: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2926: 2921: 2920: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2888: 2880: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2857: 2855: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2840: 2837: 2833: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2817: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2746: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2722: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2685:as proposed. 2684: 2681: 2679: 2676: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2574: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2562: 2561: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2507:public domain 2503: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2488: 2487: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2437: 2435: 2432: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2419:Albatross2147 2417: 2414: 2413: 2408: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2346: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2112: 2110: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2032: 2029: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2016: 2011: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1982: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1943: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1836: 1831: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1801: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1674: 1669: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1630: 1628: 1623: 1617: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1459: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1381:Francis Davey 1378: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1304: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1238: 1236: 1234: 1230: 1228: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1210: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1197: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1180:a redlink in 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115:(and fix the 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1005: 1002:a redlink in 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 950: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 873: 870: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 820: 817: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 763: 760: 757: 753: 749: 746:(and fix the 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 710: 707: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 634: 631: 630: 629: 627: 622: 620: 616: 611: 609: 604: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 74: 71: 70: 69: 68: 61: 56: 54: 53: 50: 45: 41: 36: 25: 19: 4448: 4445: 4430: 4386: 4264: 4252:68.175.29.38 4247: 4214: 4200: 4199: 4165: 4152:no consensus 4151: 4112: 4093: 4064: 4050:User:Visviva 4034: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3869: 3865: 3797: 3796: 3738: 3728: 3646: 3612: 3545: 3454: 3450: 3423: 3404: 3388: 3384: 3330: 3296: 3284:no consensus 3283: 3278: 3245:Tony Sidaway 3240: 3228: 3223: 3194: 3193: 3188: 3187: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3103: 3095: 3086: 3071: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3012: 3010: 3008: 2974: 2965: 2964: 2953: 2945: 2912: 2894: 2884: 2868: 2858: 2843: 2831: 2821: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2781: 2777: 2698: 2694: 2682: 2669: 2665: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2632: 2619: 2615: 2591: 2590:In general, 2589: 2575: 2563: 2531: 2501: 2489: 2473: 2470:encyclopedia 2469: 2450: 2438: 2426: 2415: 2361: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2275: 2196: 2171: 2167: 2165: 2138: 2126: 2113: 2101: 2089: 2085:user:Zanimum 2080: 2068: 2057: 2047: 2035: 2022: 2002: 1992: 1988: 1975: 1960: 1944: 1933: 1921: 1911: 1907: 1893: 1878: 1874: 1864: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1840: 1829: 1820: 1807: 1802: 1787: 1775: 1765: 1755:Matthew 1:18 1745: 1733: 1714: 1649: 1639: 1626: 1621: 1615: 1605: 1595: 1577: 1563: 1558:Niteowlneils 1553: 1541: 1533: 1529: 1515: 1492: 1487:Blu Aardvark 1482: 1468: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1439: 1429: 1419: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1396: 1386: 1376: 1371:Natalinasmpf 1366: 1353: 1314: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1279: 1269: 1260: 1251: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1231: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1205:rather than 1202: 1200: 1193: 1187: 1177: 1169: 1130: 1125:resurrection 1116: 1069: 1061:Matthew 4:22 1057:Matthew 4:21 1053:Matthew 4:20 1049:Matthew 4:19 1045:Matthew 4:18 1041: 1033:Matthew 4:17 1029:Matthew 4:16 1025:Matthew 4:15 1021:Matthew 4:14 1017:Matthew 4:13 1013:Matthew 4:12 1009: 999: 992:Matthew 4:11 988:Matthew 4:10 948: 939:Matthew 3:17 935:Matthew 3:16 931:Matthew 3:15 927:Matthew 3:14 923:Matthew 3:13 919:Matthew 3:12 915:Matthew 3:11 911:Matthew 3:10 871: 862:Matthew 2:23 858:Matthew 2:22 854:Matthew 2:21 850:Matthew 2:20 846:Matthew 2:19 842:Matthew 2:18 838:Matthew 2:17 834:Matthew 2:16 830:Matthew 2:15 826:Matthew 2:14 822:Matthew 2:13 818: 809:Matthew 2:12 805:Matthew 2:11 801:Matthew 2:10 761: 747: 740:Matthew 1:25 736:Matthew 1:24 732:Matthew 1:23 728:Matthew 1:22 724:Matthew 1:21 720:Matthew 1:20 716:Matthew 1:19 712:Matthew 1:18 708: 700:Matthew 1:17 696:Matthew 1:16 692:Matthew 1:15 688:Matthew 1:14 684:Matthew 1:13 680:Matthew 1:12 676:Matthew 1:11 672:Matthew 1:10 632: 626:User:Uncle G 623: 612: 605: 592: 590: 511:Matthew 5:19 507:Matthew 5:18 503:Matthew 5:17 499:Matthew 5:16 495:Matthew 5:15 491:Matthew 5:14 487:Matthew 5:13 483:Matthew 5:12 479:Matthew 5:11 475:Matthew 5:10 436:Matthew 4:25 432:Matthew 4:24 428:Matthew 4:23 424:Matthew 4:22 420:Matthew 4:21 416:Matthew 4:20 412:Matthew 4:19 408:Matthew 4:18 404:Matthew 4:17 400:Matthew 4:16 396:Matthew 4:15 392:Matthew 4:14 388:Matthew 4:13 384:Matthew 4:12 380:Matthew 4:11 376:Matthew 4:10 336:Matthew 3:17 332:Matthew 3:16 328:Matthew 3:15 324:Matthew 3:14 320:Matthew 3:13 316:Matthew 3:12 312:Matthew 3:11 308:Matthew 3:10 268:Matthew 2:23 264:Matthew 2:22 260:Matthew 2:21 256:Matthew 2:20 252:Matthew 2:19 248:Matthew 2:18 244:Matthew 2:17 240:Matthew 2:16 236:Matthew 2:15 232:Matthew 2:14 228:Matthew 2:13 224:Matthew 2:12 220:Matthew 2:11 216:Matthew 2:10 176:Matthew 1:25 172:Matthew 1:24 168:Matthew 1:23 164:Matthew 1:22 160:Matthew 1:21 156:Matthew 1:20 152:Matthew 1:19 148:Matthew 1:18 144:Matthew 1:17 140:Matthew 1:16 136:Matthew 1:15 132:Matthew 1:14 128:Matthew 1:13 124:Matthew 1:12 120:Matthew 1:11 116:Matthew 1:10 77: 72: 66: 65: 39: 37: 33: 4372:Abstain x 2 4349:Abstain x 2 4328:Abstain x 2 4287:Abstain x 2 3986:next? :) -- 3984:Mahabharata 3881:concordence 3877:Bible study 3816:User:Wesley 3607:Please see 3369:Matthew 3:1 3118:Matthew 3:1 2826:Jonathunder 2745:Sockpuppets 2466:Matthew 1:9 2370:David Sneek 2336:to the VfD 2201:Matthew 1:9 2183:The reason 2131:Mike Rosoft 2102:Strong Keep 1976:Strong keep 1937:David Sneek 1803:Strong keep 1776:Strong Keep 1766:Strong Keep 1750:Magna Carta 1650:Strong Keep 1178:was already 1000:was already 984:Matthew 4:9 980:Matthew 4:8 976:Matthew 4:7 972:Matthew 4:6 968:Matthew 4:5 964:Matthew 4:4 960:Matthew 4:3 956:Matthew 4:2 952:Matthew 4:1 907:Matthew 3:9 903:Matthew 3:8 899:Matthew 3:7 895:Matthew 3:6 891:Matthew 3:5 887:Matthew 3:4 883:Matthew 3:3 879:Matthew 3:2 875:Matthew 3:1 797:Matthew 2:9 793:Matthew 2:8 789:Matthew 2:7 785:Matthew 2:6 781:Matthew 2:5 777:Matthew 2:4 773:Matthew 2:3 769:Matthew 2:2 765:Matthew 2:1 668:Matthew 1:9 664:Matthew 1:8 660:Matthew 1:7 656:Matthew 1:6 652:Matthew 1:5 648:Matthew 1:4 644:Matthew 1:3 640:Matthew 1:2 636:Matthew 1:1 471:Matthew 5:9 467:Matthew 5:8 463:Matthew 5:7 459:Matthew 5:6 456:Matthew 5:5 452:Matthew 5:4 448:Matthew 5:3 444:Matthew 5:2 440:Matthew 5:1 372:Matthew 4:9 368:Matthew 4:8 364:Matthew 4:7 360:Matthew 4:6 356:Matthew 4:5 352:Matthew 4:4 348:Matthew 4:3 344:Matthew 4:2 340:Matthew 4:1 304:Matthew 3:9 300:Matthew 3:8 296:Matthew 3:7 292:Matthew 3:6 288:Matthew 3:5 284:Matthew 3:4 280:Matthew 3:3 276:Matthew 3:2 272:Matthew 3:1 212:Matthew 2:9 208:Matthew 2:8 204:Matthew 2:7 200:Matthew 2:6 196:Matthew 2:5 192:Matthew 2:4 188:Matthew 2:3 184:Matthew 2:2 180:Matthew 2:1 112:Matthew 1:9 108:Matthew 1:8 104:Matthew 1:7 100:Matthew 1:6 96:Matthew 1:5 92:Matthew 1:4 88:Matthew 1:3 84:Matthew 1:2 80:Matthew 1:1 4408:locations. 4361:Delete x 7 4355:Merge x 27 4337:Either x 3 4317:Delete x 5 4293:Merge x 21 4269:Discounted 4043:Pali Canon 3885:commentary 3673:language. 3393:Grace Note 3279:objections 3262:Jesus wept 3042:that verse 2966:also moved 2863:WolfKeeper 2699:in context 2687:No Account 2359:User:-Ril- 2306:User:-Ril- 2272:User:-Ril- 2264:. Thanks. 2262:User:-Ril- 2257:Primo Levi 2227:User:-Ril- 2215:User:-Ril- 2172:sockpuppet 2073:JamesBurns 2052:Factitious 1569:Antandrus 1520:JYolkowski 1166:John 20:19 1162:John 20:18 1158:John 20:17 1154:John 20:16 1150:John 20:15 1146:John 20:14 1142:John 20:13 1138:John 20:12 1134:John 20:11 1109:John 20:10 601:Jesus wept 587:John 20:19 583:John 20:18 579:John 20:17 575:John 20:16 571:John 20:15 567:John 20:14 563:John 20:13 559:John 20:12 555:John 20:11 551:John 20:10 4352:Keep x 34 4290:Keep x 31 4277:merge x 1 4143:NatusRoma 3729:eliminate 3618:brenneman 3586:NatusRoma 3577:NatusRoma 3559:NatusRoma 3537:NatusRoma 3525:talk page 3220:Purgatory 3211:NatusRoma 3087:Transwiki 2805:Transwiki 2568:Sam Vimes 2431:NatusRoma 2323:Ruhrfisch 2266:Ruhrfisch 2219:Ruhrfisch 2156:Ruhrfisch 1989:Transwiki 1912:Transwiki 1875:Transwiki 1856:transwiki 1483:Transwiki 1469:Transwiki 1463:Stbalbach 1302:brenneman 1105:John 20:9 1101:John 20:8 1097:John 20:7 1093:John 20:6 1089:John 20:5 1085:John 20:4 1081:John 20:3 1077:John 20:2 1073:John 20:1 628:, namely 597:John 3:16 547:John 20:9 543:John 20:8 539:John 20:7 535:John 20:6 531:John 20:5 527:John 20:4 523:John 20:3 519:John 20:2 515:John 20:1 44:Sjakkalle 4274:Keep x 1 3999:Almafeta 3988:Dmcdevit 3663:Almafeta 3633:Almafeta 3498:Almafeta 3348:content. 3323:Dmcdevit 3157:Dcarrano 3108:Dcarrano 3080:Scimitar 3076:John 1:1 2881:Comments 2646:material 2633:a priori 2472:and not 2338:starting 2280:Catch 22 2203:is not. 2187:or each 2146:or each 2094:carmeld1 2061:Almafeta 1926:R. fiend 1916:Alex.tan 1760:Dsmdgold 1477:Dcarrano 1434:Darwinek 1424:Scimitar 1117:existing 748:existing 595:concern 593:DOES NOT 48:(Check!) 4215:already 4204:open. 4041:or the 3850:Uppland 3823:Uppland 3613:Abstain 3385:be bold 3179:Comment 3137:John 20 2944:Please 2872:Akubhai 2758:Davilla 2735:Davilla 2703:Davilla 2395:Tobycat 2253:Cologne 2191:, or a 2150:, or a 2106:Tobycat 2058:Delete. 1981:Uppland 1600:Mysidia 1588:t?kt?mi 1454:Abstain 1288:Abstain 1176:(which 1170:et seq. 998:(which 4136:SimonP 4098:Tintin 4057:(talk) 3969:(talk) 3883:, and 3866:should 3786:(talk) 3689:DavidH 3459:Wesley 3443:(talk) 3374:Harmil 3308:adiant 3233:Geogre 3229:delete 3165:DavidH 3153:Geogre 3145:SimonP 3126:Harmil 3100:UncleG 3037:Delete 2997:Harmil 2980:Harmil 2958:Harmil 2917:Harmil 2913:highly 2899:Harmil 2859:Delete 2844:Delete 2783:humble 2721:(talk) 2670:merged 2650:Jmabel 2596:Jmabel 2511:Samboy 2494:DavidH 2443:Wesley 2416:Delete 2274:says " 2118:Nova77 2069:Delete 2014:(talk) 1898:Jayjg 1886:(talk) 1883:kmccoy 1825:Aranel 1815:(Talk) 1729:Aranel 1716:Geogre 1678:Geogre 1668:(talk) 1657:(talk) 1572:(talk) 1535:Allen3 1401:Wetman 1348:SimonP 1284:Delete 1264:Harmil 1207:delete 1107:, and 1059:, and 1031:, and 990:, and 937:, and 860:, and 807:, and 738:, and 698:, and 585:, and 4400:Xoloz 4369:I.e. 4325:I.e. 4248:Merge 4206:Tomer 4201:still 4171:Tomer 4127:Tomer 4039:Quran 4021:Kappa 3720:Kappa 3546:still 3451:Merge 3314:|< 3313:: --> 3297:merge 3288:Xoloz 3224:could 3192:merge 3031:Merge 2937:Kappa 2895:sects 2848:drini 2836:Nabla 2832:Merge 2822:Merge 2814:Tomer 2695:Merge 2683:Merge 2616:merge 2584:wiser 2580:older 2576:Merge 2536:Smyth 2455:Karol 2439:Merge 2362:asked 2334:prior 2330:prior 2284:Kappa 2127:Merge 2114:Merge 2090:Merge 2036:Merge 2003:Merge 1993:merge 1922:Merge 1908:Merge 1894:Merge 1879:merge 1866:Welch 1844:CalJW 1830:Sarah 1821:Merge 1788:Merge 1734:Sarah 1627:Verse 1622:Blank 1610:Xoloz 1578:Merge 1493:Merge 1450:Merge 1440:Merge 1430:Merge 1397:Merge 1377:Merge 1281:Merge 1274:Kappa 1252:Merge 1239:Votes 1223:merge 1203:merge 756:Jesus 62:Intro 42:all. 16:< 4437:~~~~ 4414:~~~~ 4388:~~~~ 4222:~~~~ 4190:~~~~ 4181:~~~~ 4156:~~~~ 4094:Keep 4082:~~~~ 4065:Keep 4035:Keep 4008:~~~~ 3950:~~~~ 3937:Talk 3889:~~~~ 3836:~~~~ 3803:~~~~ 3769:Talk 3745:~~~~ 3709:Talk 3675:~~~~ 3651:~~~~ 3609:this 3568:~~~~ 3550:~~~~ 3544:You 3516:~~~~ 3485:~~~~ 3472:~~~~ 3431:~~~~ 3409:~~~~ 3389:Keep 3266:~~~~ 3249:Talk 3241:Keep 3199:~~~~ 3046:this 2976:VfD. 2946:read 2869:Keep 2801:Keep 2787:fool 2749:~~~~ 2675:IZAK 2654:Talk 2638:keep 2624:~~~~ 2620:keep 2612:~~~~ 2600:Talk 2592:keep 2564:Keep 2552:~~~~ 2532:Keep 2520:~~~~ 2502:Keep 2478:~~~~ 2451:Keep 2427:Keep 2404:~~~~ 2380:~~~~ 2342:~~~~ 2239:~~~~ 2231:~~~~ 2205:~~~~ 2176:~~~~ 2139:Keep 2083:-- 2048:Keep 2023:Keep 1997:kooo 1964:~~~~ 1949:Samw 1945:Keep 1934:Keep 1861:Phil 1854:and 1841:keep 1792:mark 1746:Keep 1644:Samw 1640:Keep 1606:Keep 1596:Keep 1582:Angr 1564:Keep 1546:~~~~ 1530:Keep 1524:talk 1516:Keep 1510:Talk 1443:Wyss 1416:~~~~ 1408:Keep 1387:Keep 1367:Keep 1354:Keep 1315:Keep 1270:Keep 1261:Keep 1255:~~~~ 1233:~~~~ 40:keep 4166:not 3868:be 3798:all 3647:yet 3089:to 3064:(?) 3061:Doc 3022:(?) 3019:Doc 3013:not 2810:not 2803:or 2640:or 2313:(?) 2310:Doc 2009:CDC 1995:. — 1991:or 1910:or 1833:") 1812:You 1808:may 1737:") 1522:// 1475:. 1471:to 1432:-- 1361:(?) 1358:Doc 1321:or 1172:to 1111:to 1063:to 1035:to 994:to 941:to 864:to 811:to 742:to 702:to 610:. 603:. 599:or 4435:. 4052:. 3935:| 3925:— 3879:, 3821:-- 3767:| 3757:— 3707:| 3697:— 3407:. 3321:-- 3222:) 3059:-- 2889:. 2824:. 2652:| 2598:| 2509:. 2476:. 2199:. 1896:. 1827:(" 1731:(" 1544:. 1508:| 1498:— 1456:. 1391:24 1389:. 1229:. 1168:, 1164:, 1160:, 1156:, 1152:, 1148:, 1144:, 1140:, 1136:, 1103:, 1099:, 1095:, 1091:, 1087:, 1083:, 1079:, 1075:, 1055:, 1051:, 1047:, 1027:, 1023:, 1019:, 1015:, 986:, 982:, 978:, 974:, 970:, 966:, 962:, 958:, 954:, 933:, 929:, 925:, 921:, 917:, 913:, 909:, 905:, 901:, 897:, 893:, 889:, 885:, 881:, 877:, 856:, 852:, 848:, 844:, 840:, 836:, 832:, 828:, 824:, 803:, 799:, 795:, 791:, 787:, 783:, 779:, 775:, 771:, 767:, 734:, 730:, 726:, 722:, 718:, 714:, 694:, 690:, 686:, 682:, 678:, 674:, 670:, 666:, 662:, 658:, 654:, 650:, 646:, 642:, 638:, 621:. 581:, 577:, 573:, 569:, 565:, 561:, 557:, 553:, 549:, 545:, 541:, 537:, 533:, 529:, 525:, 521:, 517:, 513:, 509:, 505:, 501:, 497:, 493:, 489:, 485:, 481:, 477:, 473:, 469:, 465:, 461:, 454:, 450:, 446:, 442:, 438:, 434:, 430:, 426:, 422:, 418:, 414:, 410:, 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 370:, 366:, 362:, 358:, 354:, 350:, 346:, 342:, 338:, 334:, 330:, 326:, 322:, 318:, 314:, 310:, 306:, 302:, 298:, 294:, 290:, 286:, 282:, 278:, 274:, 270:, 266:, 262:, 258:, 254:, 250:, 246:, 242:, 238:, 234:, 230:, 226:, 222:, 218:, 214:, 210:, 206:, 202:, 198:, 194:, 190:, 186:, 182:, 178:, 174:, 170:, 166:, 162:, 158:, 154:, 150:, 146:, 142:, 138:, 134:, 130:, 126:, 122:, 118:, 114:, 110:, 106:, 102:, 98:, 94:, 90:, 86:, 82:, 3992:t 3990:· 3933:P 3930:I 3927:J 3765:P 3762:I 3759:J 3705:P 3702:I 3699:J 3311:_ 3305:R 3247:| 2978:- 2851:☎ 2790:® 2582:≠ 2538:\ 2168:1 1795:✎ 1633:∅ 1584:/ 1506:P 1503:I 1500:J 1344:r 1341:u 1338:o 1335:f 1184:) 1127:) 1006:) 758:) 26:)

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses - Knowledge (XXG)

Index