User talk:Telpardec/Archive 1

Gabriel
Is not Gabriel an archangel in the New Testament? He is an archangel in Islam, and the title applied to his saint infobox seems to say that Christianity believes the same. But on Zechariah (priest), you seemed to say Gabriel was not an archangel. --Imadjafar (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * April 2011 - Gabriel not called an archangel in the Bible


 * In the Bible (Authorized Version) he is not. The phrase "the archangel" only appears twice in the Bible:
 * 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
 * Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
 * Michael the archangel is the primary or first angel before all others. Gabriel is called "the man Gabriel" in the book of Daniel. (Of course, in the Bible, all angels appear as men without wings, contrary to popular misconception. Seraphims have 6 wings, and Cherubims have 4 wings, but they are not called angels in the Bible. Seraphims appear above the throne of God in, and Cherubims appear beneath the throne in & .)
 * Michael is "one of the chief princes" in
 * He is called "Michael your prince" in
 * He is "the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" in
 * He is the head of all the holy angels in the book of Revelation:


 * Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, [8] And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


 * Gabriel is associated with prophecy everywhere he appears by name. He explained the visions to Daniel, he announced the future birth of John Baptist and Jesus Christ. He is probably the un-named angel that prophesied to Mary's husband Joseph. Michael is associated with warfare and judgment.
 * Thanks for your patience waiting for this delayed reply. Telpardec (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. This is all very interesting, but while the Bible may not title Gabriel as such, does not Church tradition rank Gabriel as an Archangel? I am sure you know more about this topic than I do but I am asking you because in all books I have seen Christians refer to Gabriel as Saint Gabriel the Archangel, and all the Angelic hierarchys, including that of the the earliest theologians as well as Gregory the Great, place Gabriel at the level of an archangel. Any thoughts?--Imadjafar (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Caphtor
Thank you for making my little contribution to the article nicer and more appropriately placed :) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * April 2011 - A thank you note.


 * You're very welcome. :) --Telpardec (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

God vs. god
July 2011 - MOSCAPS "always capitalized" rule
 * July 2011 - MOSCAPS "always capitalized" rule

It is my understanding that the reason there are no exceptions to the rule that the word "God" is always capitalized in the above context, is that it is a special noun. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page.
 * As for your comment here, I think it's a title; because of feelings of reverence, it often is treated as a 'special noun', but not always, not even in the Bible (NSV, for example). Since we don't treat His as a 'special pronoun', and don't express such reverence for other deities (when Muslims add 'Peace be upon Him' to WP articles, they're promptly reverted, for example), it is IMO opinion biased to do this for the JC deity as in doing so we are elevating him (Him) above others (Others). It would be different if 'God' were a 'special noun' when used for any deity. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "heads up" on the unsigned post, and thanks for your civility in general. Steve kap (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

John Bright
Thanks for your work on that article. I had a look at it and can't see anything to change. Good work. PiCo (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix on Ten Commandments
I have a new idea that should satisfy both using background shading. (And I tested the en-dashes in the biblerefs, and they seemed to work, but no biggie. It was sort of an accident in my search-and-replace that I left in after they seemed to still work.)  71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I certainly won't accuse you if edit warring if you don't like that either.  Thanks for taking the time to explain why.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the color coding, since that does not affect people using screen readers, a probably helps those without visual problems see what verses are grouped. Thanks.
 * The endash failure problem with URLs occurs when dragging and dropping a link from one browser window to another, rather than direct clicking or right-clicking w/open in new window option. I think it's a unicode vs. ASCII problem. —Telpardec TALK  22:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

 * November 2011 - Work in progress. ..

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Priest or Bishop
Been busy but back to editing a bit now. Got your message on my talk regarding the earlier discussion here. Thanks for letting me know you saw my comments at St. Paul talk. Delta x (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. —Telpardec TALK  23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas
History2007 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the greeting. —Telpardec TALK  16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Ham
Just out of curiosity, why do you insist on underlining "curse on Ham" in the bible verses? You do realise you're adding an emphasis that isn't in the original? And why do you think it's needed - the article is already pretty clear that this is a misnomer. (I said I won't edit the article any more, and I won't, but I'm curious about your concerns). PiCo (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, bold type would be emphasis, (and maybe appropriate since Noah was probably not speaking meekly there. :) But the mild underlining of " cursed be Canaan " is meant merely to draw the visual reader's attention to the fact that it was not a "curse on Ham", (to quote your misquote above,) but on Canaan . I'm not locked into the underlining, but I still think it is needed. There is something about this passage of scripture that puts people into a tail-spin. Thanks for expressing your concerns. See also my latest comments on the Talk:Curse_of_Ham page. —Telpardec TALK  16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Water level graph for Sea of Galillee
I made that water level graph in April 2010 and posted the image of it. I am happy to make a new one periodically and post it, but is there a better way? There is a link to the raw data online at www.twitter.com/kinbot, but it needs a lot of massaging before you can make it into a chart that looks good (not a big fan of the one at savethekinneret).

-david — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.46.150 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam named

 * January 2012 - Adam's name (1st use)
 * (The following is a continuation of a thread from PiCo's talk page re: Adam in )

If you like you can do a sentence about it - maybe get info from Alter's commentary? (It's in the bibliography).

The new material on the ambiguity of "In the beginning..." is p[erhaps better than what I had from Blenkinsopp, IMO - but of course you tell me that the Blenkinsopp ref was wrong anyway - maybe it was from some other book and I got them mixed. Never mind. :)

Actually that verification process is something that needs to be done. If you have the incliniation, you might go thropugh and check them all (about 80 I think!) If you find anything to query, put a tag, but also make a note in Talk telling me just what's wrong.

All the best. PiCo (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was Blenkinsopp after all - I had the wrong page, it should have been page 30. Should we go back to the old version or is the newer one better? PiCo (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original sentence caught my eye because it wasn't clear to me what it was saying. Your new sentence from Bandstra agrees with its source.
 * As for the 81 references, ouch... Since my newer computer crashed I'm been using this older/slower one with dial-up connection, insufficient RAM – with a speed between a really fast snail and a slow turtle. The pages in Google books sometimes take more than ten minutes to load.
 * As for using Alter's commentary, oh boy, instead of calling Adam by name in Gen.2:19, he calls him "the human", and even after calling his wife-to-be "Woman", Adam is still "the human". Oh well. And he is still "the human" thru chapter 3, and in Gen.4:1-- "And the human knew Eve his woman and she conceived..." Alter allows names for Cain and Abel, and Cain's descendents, but not Adam until Gen.4:25-- "And Adam again knew his wife..." That doesn't inspire me to trust Alter as a reliable source for anything.
 * Thanks for the clarification above. —Telpardec TALK  12:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

small-cap templates
Sorry, I don't understand this. It displays just fine in IE. In fact, the change you make has no effect on the display in IE, at least not in Win7. Could it be a difference in OS rather than in browser? There's good reason to use the template rather than manual reduction: by using the template, we are consistent everywhere in WP; if there's a problem, it can be fixed in a single place. Also, if Lord does not display properly for you, then there are probably other things which don't, and they should all be fixed.
 * April 2011 - accessibility issues and etc.

How do these look?



They should all be the same. If they're not, what's your OS?

(I just checked: they're identical in IE and FF; (1) is slightly different in Opera, but not all caps.) — kwami (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Kwami. #1 and #2 appear as smallcaps, but #3 as all caps. My OS is Windows XP Home with IE6. The OS should not matter for css, since the browser handles html and css stuff. I checked using AOL 9.0 and #3 is all caps. I'm not clear what you mean by "no effect" above – Are you saying the " ORD " is not displaying with reduced font-size? —Telpardec TALK  18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Smallcaps article, the small capital letters are supposed to be the same height as the lower case letters. The smallcaps style in #1 and #2 above appear 1 pixel taller than lower case height in my screen. It displays the same as lower case height when I switch to 80% or 75%. I have no problem with using either of those two sizes if they appear better in your browsers. —Telpardec TALK  18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because you're using an old version of IE, then? I have IE9, and the three look nearly identical. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, old. IE8 was the first "standards compliant" version. My investigation indicates that the problem implementing the font-variant:small-caps and text-transform:lowercase affects all IE versions from IE4 which was the first to include those 2 styles, through IE7. I went down in the basement and cranked up my old Windows 95 computer with IE4 to test it and got really strange results. Both styles worked as they should by themselves, but lowercase inside small-caps was different than IE6, which as noted above with #3 kept the all caps. IE4 recognized the lower case style, but failed to change it to upper case before reducing the size, and ended up with even smaller lower case. Then it got really weird when I decided to reverse the order of the styles with small-caps inside lowercase – It successfully converted the upper case to small-caps! I got excited and came back up here to try that with IE6. No such luck. Oh well.


 * The Wikipedia page Template:Smallcaps/doc, has had a note since 6 Oct 2007 that says:
 * (The "font-variant:small-caps;text-transform:lowercase" has not been used because it does not work at least in Internet Explorer 5 and 6, which are still fairly common browsers.)
 * As of NovemberDecember 2011, IE6 still had 8.3% of the global market share. (27.9% in China) A July 2011 survey showed that all versions of IE collectively had about 52% of the market. Among the IE versions IE8 had the largest number of users, IE6 second, IE7 third, and IE9 fourth. IE4x and IE5x were not included in that survey. Both IE6 and IE7 are still in Microsoft's "extended support" phase, which is mainly security updates. IE6 is good until the end of 2012 if memory serves. By my estimate about 14% of global users are still using IE versions lower that version 8.


 * See also: Usage share of web browsers and Internet Explorer


 * I noticed that you renamed Template:Smallcaps all (used in your #3 above) to Template:Hard smallcaps. —Telpardec TALK  16:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * does as it promises (leaving aside the detail on using parameter 2): smallcaps for all characters when smallcaps available, uppercase when not available. If that is a problem with this template, one can change this one into or, in specialised templates such as this one, indeed squeeze the font.
 * One more recent check please, because code has changed. Which ones are not (or less) desired?
 * L
 * (For me: #1 for in-line font tweaking, and #3 #4 because it has no initial full capital as is desired here (if I am correct). #2, 4 #3, #5, #6 are OK and look the same. Regular browsers FF and Safari).
 * In short: when unsatisfied, return to with this one. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (For me: #1 for in-line font tweaking, and #3 #4 because it has no initial full capital as is desired here (if I am correct). #2, 4 #3, #5, #6 are OK and look the same. Regular browsers FF and Safari).
 * In short: when unsatisfied, return to with this one. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (For me: #1 for in-line font tweaking, and #3 #4 because it has no initial full capital as is desired here (if I am correct). #2, 4 #3, #5, #6 are OK and look the same. Regular browsers FF and Safari).
 * In short: when unsatisfied, return to with this one. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In short: when unsatisfied, return to with this one. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't use . It's incorrect, as is (2) above. If (6) works for Telpardec, that's a solution; otherwise we might need to modify the template. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "incorrect"? That's no way to improve stuff or solve problems. Anyway, if one does not want to use here then don't use it.  is unchanged and available. But don't push that problem higher up to general small caps typographics. Just don't. It must be solved within this template lord and god. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * - Even worse. It should be GOD, not god. How could I be so wrong. Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, I'm glad you could jump in on this discussion, I was about to drop you a note and make sure you were up to date on developments here, when your reply appeared here. For me, numbers 1 and 2 are both smallcaps and identical. All the rest are all uppercase, because they use those two incompatible styles, as noted above. By "incorrect" I think Kwami is referring to the copy and paste problem he was trying to correct. The Template:LORD documentation all along has been basically saying that copying to non-format aware applications would result in all upper case, but the template used the lowercase "Lord" with the small-caps style. Browsers or operating systems that strip formatting when pasted to a plain text application like Windows NotePad would display "Lord", not all uppercase. I'm guessing that whoever wrote that part of the documentation was using either a browser or OS that instead of stripping the format, treated text formatted as small capitals as being equivalent to regular capitals and changed it to all uppercase when pasted. If we start with all uppercase "LORD", and don't permanently change the "ORD" to lowercase, (like Kwami's first revision attempt of the template using the "lc:" magic word,) then it should be all uppercase when pasted to a non-formatting aware application in any OS or browser. The Nocaps inside Smallcaps does not work in any version of IE before IE8, which potentially affects as much as 14 percent of viewers, and probably a somewhat smaller percentage of editors.

FWIW: My understanding is that the common way browsers implement the small-caps code is to first check the font to see if it has a small-caps variant. Most fonts only have upper and lower case variants. If it has the variant, then the variant is simply substituted, and that's it. If there is no special variant, then the lower case is switched to upper case and the font-size is reduced to about the same height as lowercase text or slightly taller.

Now, with my IE-6 browser,, on wiki pages, displays the text as 10-point Arial - the "L" is 10 pixels high, and the "" is 8 pixels high. The font-size:83% version appears exactly the same in my browser, however the lowercase text height is 7 pixels, so technically my browser is rendering the small-caps 1 pixel too tall for that base font size. The font-size:80% does display the short-caps ORD as 7 pixels.

OK, we need to bottom line this if we can. I've explained how all these samples appear in my browser, but I'm still not clear how they appear in your browsers. I am clear that the {smallcaps all} appears as small caps in your browsers. What I need to know is how the reduced font-size appears. Does it look the same as the small-caps, or not? Too tall, too short, too dark, too light? Let me put up some side by side samples, with {smallcaps|Lord} on the left as a control in each case, since all of us are seeing small-caps with that style, and to the right of that various sizes of reduce font-size samples, with some ordinary lowercase text after that:


 * 1)  L ORD aeiou (83%)
 * 2)  L ORD aeiou (80%)
 * 3)  L ORD aeiou (75%)
 * 4)  L ORD aeiou (70%)

For me, #1 left &amp; right look the same, but both 1 pixel taller than the lowercase aeiou. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 look like each other in all respects, each with the right sample 1 pixel shorter than the left, but the same height as the lowercase aeiou. I'm OK with any one of those four. —Telpardec TALK  17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In Safari: #1 and #2 introduce bold letters (when zoomed in very much). #3 comes closest, esp in size (small differences over all)
 * In Firefox: #2 comes closest, esp in size. #1 too. Other two differ visually.
 * I get the < IE8 issue you describe. That is a problem to be solved in the . I have no problem with the solution used here (font sizing) if it suits the situation, but I do not want that in general. Because it is changing the font in a running text. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment We're never going to get the sizes correct, because the diff tween UC and LC varies from font to font. Change your default font, and you'll need to change the amount of reduction. We've been using 83% for a long time, and AFAIK that's broadly acceptable. Anyway, I think we should use the same reduction everywhere. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Which of these are acceptable?


 * L
 * L

Both paste correctly, and both use the default reduction. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

small caps
If this does not work, why are you proposing it here? — kwami (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fruitful and multiply
Wow! You really put sa lot of research into that one :) I simply had a look at the verse in question in bible-gateway - didn't see anything abt "fruitful and multiply" and wasn't expecting to, because I had the idea that the idea was that commands like that were exclusively aimed at mankind (by the end of Genesis the Israelites number 70+, not so many, but by the begining of Exodus they count well over a million, which is being exceedingly fruitful in just four generations). Anyway, I won't argue if you want to revert it, but my idea was to focus attention on what I think is the most important aspect of that side of the creation story, which is that God's comman to mankind is to "multiply" - maybe to animals/birds also, but to mankind it really matters, since they're the crown of creation. PiCo (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 5:17-48
Hi, any comments on Talk:Expounding_of_the_Law? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive
1) On "Tetragrammaton", it's simply a fact that established names of languages get capitalized (and unfortunately your explanation for the capitalization of "old" in "Old English" is laughably wrong, since it does not apply to the numerous other "Old X" language names, among others). 2) On "Qre and Kethib", adding in "pockmarking" tagging (i.e. indiscriminately and robotically marking up each and every section) is really not helpful, and accomplishes nothing. It's taken for granted that ideally everything in every Wikipedia article should be sourced. The purpose of tags is to prioritize, by calling attention to things that are particularly in need of sourcing (for whatever reason). "Pockmarking" pretty much defeats the purpose of tagging, since the parade of repetitive tags causes most people's eyes to glaze over (which is the exact opposite of calling special attention to a particular problem). AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel
You recently removed an improvement template and stated, "removed external links from top of page, didn't find any EL in body". There are still several external links in the body of the article that need to be removed. Please do not remove improvement templates without addressing the issue.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed the WP:EL tag again. What gives?  I started a discussion on the talk page, here.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  02:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource
Hi, The reason I keep using Wikisource is that if Biblegateway goes away tomorrow, there will be a serious WP:Linkrot problem, and the general Wiki-direction is to be self-contained as much as possible. I hope you understand. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Biblegateway is only one of many posssible sites that Template:Bibleref can link to and if it should go away, it is only necessary to change the template to one of the other sites. Wikisource is no good for verse references at present because it loads the whole book, which greatly increases the wasted time of someone who only needs to look at one or a few verses. For me, the wikisource books do not jump down to the particular passage when first loaded - I have to grab the icon at the left of the address bar and drag and drop it into the page to get it to work. With my slow computer and dial-up connection, it can take more than a minute for the whole process to complete - that is way too much thumb-twiddling. Wikisource cannot display more than one passage for comparison, nor display verses from more than one version at the same time, Template:Bibleref2 can. If someone ever comes up with a comparable reference system for wikisource, then all your hard coded wikisource refs would have to be individually changed. All things considered, we need to keep using the specially designed bible ref templates. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. —Telpardec TALK  16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sample of more than one passage per link:
 * Sample of more than one version per link:
 * Sample of multiple versions/passages:

Wikisource (What talk?)
 ((Message copied here from User Talk:History 2007&mdash;))  Hi, in this edit (9 May 2012) your edit summary said, "using wikisrc links per prev talk on wikiproj Christianity". What talk page does that refer to? Gotta link? Have there been discussions elsewhere? Thanks. —Telpardec TALK  14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The original links were in Wikisource, then Arsenal changed that section to Bibleref. Then he asked about these on the WikiProject in this link, so when I changed it back I just mentioned that discussion. The long and short of it was that Bible gateway is off-wiki and subject to WP:Linikrot, while Wikipedia is now moving to self-reliant content. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed you had responded above... So we have had this discussion before. Now regarding your comment that Wikisource loads the whole page, yes that is another great advantage! That allows the reader to get the whole context, not just small view. But overall, WP:EL says: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." So anyway, I am not emotionally attached to either approach, but third party external links are to be avoided whenever possible, and Wikisource is making that possible. History2007 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I was reading your talk page I noticed that some one else had told you the same thing on Talk:Gabriel. So, I think other people are making the same comment as well. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Church of Norway
The church is still part of the state, see here: Church_of_Norway. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Church of Norway is no longer the "official religion", see here Church of Norway. There are still some strings attached during the transition period that is expected to last until 2017. —Telpardec TALK  16:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs fixed
I cant find what I want on the contact page so Ill post it. There is an error on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alligator_%281862%29. It states top speed of the USS Alligator is 4 knots in one place (stat area) and 7 knots in the article. It can only be one. The info from Military History can be found here >>>http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a7/alligator-iv.htm stating top speed about 4 knots. If someone can change this or send it to the appropriate people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.249.130 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Claim on your user page
Given your claim to have studied the Bible than anyone reading your User page and that anyone in the world can access your User page does that mean that you claim to have studied the Bible than anyone in the world?Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a standard user box. —Telpardec TALK  20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion which you may wish to join
You updated the image page File:Map of state religions.svg. That image page was used as an example in a currently-ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. You may be interested in joining that discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I saw your sensible revert to Language of the New Testament. Please cast an eye on last comment on Talk:Language of Jesus. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up about Talk:Language of Jesus. —Telpardec TALK  23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560311539 your edit] to Jesus' walk on water may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lord Save me" cry of Peter is similar to and   in the Calming the storm episode and again emphasizes the reliance of the disciples on Jesus.<
 * fixed it —Telpardec TALK  16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' walk on water move request
Hi there

You recently participated in a move request for the Jesus' walk on water article. There was no consensus for the proposed move, but some suggested the new possible title of Jesus walking on water and I have reopened the move request with that as the move target. If you are interested, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Jesus' walk on water. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

jubilees
hi - biblical chronology - 1sr time i reverted i didn't notice all the stuff at the bottom of the revert, agree it's out of place - but the stuff sourced from wenham is totally in plce - cld you see yr way to reinserting just that para? tks PiCo (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Babylonian captivity
Hello - I have some questions about the changes you have made to the article "Babylonian captivity", which I have raised on the talk page, could we discuss it there? Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572163545 your edit] to Abraham may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarah found Ishmael mocking; an observation that would begin to clarify the birthright of Isaac.
 * text|standard text of the Hebrew Bible]] places Abraham's birth 1,948 years after the Creation 1948 AM (Anno Mundi, "Year of the World"). The two other major textual traditions have
 * fixed it —Telpardec 10:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573162817 your edit] to Abraham may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Baptist]] specifically taught that merely being of Abraham's seed was no guarantee of salvation.  It is not descent from Abraham to which importance is
 * fixed it —Telpardec 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biblical Hittites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed it —Telpardec 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577219329 your edit] to Kingdom of Judah may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 47.htm The Origin of Biblical Israel]", Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (art. 47, vol9, 2009) This was standard Babylonian practice: when the Philistine city of Ashkalon was
 * fixed it &mdash;Telpardec 02:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577240932 your edit] to Kingdom of Judah may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by refusing to pay tribute.Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, p255-
 * fixed it &mdash;Telpardec 07:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"OR"
"OR" has only one meaning for a seasoned editor on wikipedia, it is an accusation that I have made this up myself out of my own head. What exactly are you accusing me of fabricating? I have not made up any bit of this information myself, you are clearly using OR as an excuse to put the article in accord with your systemic bias and keep it on a low-information level. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Second Warning re edit Chronology of the Bible
See my response at User talk:Encyclopedic researcher. Thank you. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581615368 your edit] to Resurrection of Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * about belief in resurrection.
 * because of their understandable pre-occupation with the Cross. However, the belief in
 * fixed it —Telpardec 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583689778 your edit] to Aaron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * and one of the "victors". Aaron is important in Islam for his role in the events of the Exodus, in
 * hold that the Qur'anic House of Amran refers to Amran's lineage, through his son Aaron. cf. Muhammad Asad, Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir's commentary on {{Cite
 * fixed it —Telpardec 18:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583712431 your edit] to Aaron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * of the divinity who had delivered them from Egypt ({{Bibleref2|Exodus|32:1-6|9|Exodus 32:1–6}}). It should be noted that in the account given of the same events, in rabbinic sources (b. Talmud

Pauline corpus
Hello. Please reconsider your revert of my edits re the number of epistles "attributed" to Paul in the article Paul the Apostle. I recognise that the word "attribute" is potentially confusing, but it seems to me that you regard it (as I do) as referring to those epistles which bear Paul's name (I think that must be what you meant by "superscription" when you gave a motivation for your revert).

[A] As a first step, can we agree that only 13 of the "books" of the New Testament bear Paul's name? Check out cited ref (81) in the article which includes this quotation:- "There is general scholarly agreement that seven of the thirteen letters bearing Paul's name are authentic, but his authorship of the other six cannot be taken for granted... ".

See also the text of the main article Pauline Epistles to which there is an inline reference in the instant article and the first sentence of which reads:- "The Pauline epistles, Epistles of Paul, or Letters of Paul, are the thirteen New Testament books which have the name Paul (Παῦλος) as the first word, hence claiming authorship by Paul the Apostle."

Your explanation of your revert of my edits is, therefore, misguided. Only 13 of the letters bear Paul's name (none of them in fact, carries what you call a "superscription", for the name of the author is included in the text as the first verse of the first chapter).

Pending your agreement on this question of fact, I shall not take the issue to the talk page of the article nor shall I revert your revert.

Regards Ridiculus mus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now that by "superscription" you are probably referring to the titles appended by translators/editors - specifically, the AV/KJV adds "Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". Nothing of the kind appears in the original Greek (subscripotions at the end of the text are another matter), and the "attribution" of Hebrews to Paul by the translators of the AV/KJV ceased to carry conviction long ago authoritative.  Looking only at major English translations made over the last half century on either and both sides of the Atlantic, none of the NRSV, NIV, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, or New American Bible, attributes Hebrews to Paul in the title.  Regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The translators didn't just add a title, they translated the Greek title:
 * PAULOU TOU APOSTOLOU H PROS EBRAIOUS EPISTOLH
 * Some Greek texts (Stephanus) have the shorter:
 * H PROS EBRAIOUS EPISTOLH PAULOU
 * King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611) Hebrews title page
 * Revision History segment with edits under question
 * Bottom line. Traditionally and historically, 14 books have been attributed to Paul. The article needs to include something about the doubts about the authorship of Hebrews. Cheers. &mdash;Telpardec 08:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I went ahead with my corr before reading your reply here - including something about "doubts". Bottom line, I certainly agree that 14 letters have been attributed in the course of time to Paul (there was no real argument about this from the 5th c. until Erasmus in the 16th); the question, though, is which ARE attributed to him and Hebrews is now (I might say) universally neither ascribed to Paul in any modern English translation nor accepted as Pauline by scholars.  So far as textual criticism is concerned, the mss tradition records no "Greek title" for Hebrews. Nestlé-Aland 27 (I don't have 28) gives every book a title; but the titles are not necessarily part of the text as you can see from the app. crit. under "inscriptio". There is mss authority for ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ (for example), but nothing whatever for Hebrews.  Stephanus (to which your first footnote directs - something has gone wrong with your second footnote) is no more an authority for any "superscription" than is the AV. Regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Aaron
Whereas I do respect your attempt at following protocol on CiteVar, If you notice the before edit version here you will notice that it has different styles throughout the article, with short and long citation interspersed with varying consistency. My first inclination after seeing your revert was to change it back, but I know that upsets most editors as it does me as the best way is to discuss conflicts. So instead I will attempt to discuss with you that what I was doing was following the "guidlelines" set forth on that page. On a side note can you honestly look at what you changed it to and what it was and say that you made an improvement to the article. Please don't take me the wrong way, as I am not trying to ruffle feathers, but only to improve the wiki. I saw a very confusing reference section and I made it neat, clean-looking and not confusing except for the odd reference to Jewish sources. Also do take a look at This since I prefer to cause less than more problems. speednat (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See my reply at Talk:Aaron. &mdash;Telpardec 05:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

bibleverse malfunction
The "63" you recommended worked fine —until last night: see {bibleverse||Daniel|14:1-2|63} link to. At that time it went to the "cannot find page" page, and that misdirect has continued up to the present time this edit. I understand your intelligence-briefing about other-user difficulty with URL http:/...=DRA, so per your invitation to request help if having bibleverse difficulty, what efficient alternatives are available? (Meanwhile I'll continue editing the proposed article.) Appreciate your help. With respect --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "63" link you provided here works fine for me at this time. Check your typing in the article. At what point did the cannot find page error happen? at the WMF LABs site, or at biblegateway? &mdash;Telpardec 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (watching) according to our sourcetext,, Daniel has only 12 chapters, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Hebrew text the KJV is translated from only has 12 chapters. The Douay-Rheims (DRA) has additional books from the LXX or Vulgate, as well as additions to Daniel, found between the testaments in the original KJV. &mdash;Telpardec 23:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Daniel chapter 13
 * Daniel chapter 14

I just got back this morning and kept trying with 10 "variations on a theme". I checked the typing. The link {bibleverse||Daniel|13:41-51|63} worked each time clicked but the direct link {bibleverse||Daniel|14:1-2}  kept going to the "OOPS!..." page. I even did a "restart" of my PC and made another attempt. I went back to the "User page/Biblical literalist chronology" article and clicked the current link 63 to Daniel 13 again, and from that page I entered "Daniel 14:1-2" in the Biblegateway search window and got the Douay-Rheims text with no trouble at all. I then went back to the User page/Biblical literalist article, clicked the link to Daniel 14:1-2, and still got the "OOPS!" page. In answer to your query "at what point", I assume it was from Bibleverse/Biblegateway—since the link in the article being constructed was "bibleverse||..." The bottom banner readout displayed "wmfile".
 * Response to Gerda Arendt's objection: Historically it is more accurate to say those portions of the Christian Old Testament were subtracted—they were not truly additions since they were already present in the Greek rabbinical translation of the Jewish Scriptures before the time of Christ, and you can't "add" what is already there. After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 CE the Jewish rabbinical authorities in the 2nd century in controverted stand against the Christian preference for prooftexts in the wording of the Septuagint determined to establish a reduced canon of carefully compared and revised Hebrew scriptures, including those text portions not originally written in Hebrew but Aramaic, and from their efforts we now have the standardized Masoretic Text. Thirteen centuries later the Protestant reformers agreed with them, separated into a newly formed never-before-seen "intertestamental section" the portions you have been taught were "added later", adopted Jerome's designation "apocrypha" (without Jerome's distinction of meaning), and henceforth declared they had been "added" to the Bible as a polemical argument against the Catholic Christian Tradition they had broken from. Older Oxford Press editions of the KJV which include the "Apocrypha" display, for example, the title, "The history of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon, Cut off from the end of Daniel", instead of saying, "Which was added to...", and the title, "The rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther...". (When I grew up Disciples of Christ and then Conservative Baptist participating in Youth for Christ and The Navigators, I had been taught according to Revelation 22:19: "if any man shall take away from the word of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life..." —and discovery of the fact that this had actually happened filled me with horror! This text was always applied to the "whole Bible" as the entire revealed Word of God, "and you just can't do that!") In response to pressure from petitioning conservative evangelical Christian denominations at the beginning of the 20th century, Oxford elected to no longer include the Apocrypha in its standard print editions of the Bible. Too many Christians are unaware of this history. The preface at the head of the proposed article "Biblical literalist chronology" states that the chronology is according to the books of the Bible listed in the ancient canon of the Christian Old Testament accepted by Orthodox and Catholic Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation. Hence the inclusion of Daniel 13-14, and the Books of the Maccabees, including the Third Book of Maccabees in the Greek Orthodox canon. With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked all DRA Esther and Daniel 14 texts and the nonlinked 3 Maccabees texts to "63" version and they all went to the "OOPS!" page with WMF in the window above. Will disregard that for now and will continue finishing article construction, while awaiting some assistance with this thing. Appreciate what help you've given. Sincere thanks. With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See my reply on your talk.

Section "Notes" Biblical literalist chronology
Help! I read the NOTES article carefully and established a ——Notes—— section at the foot of the Biblical literalist chronology draft page, but I've had no success directing multiple-refcitation notes to it after the pattern of '''< ref name=helpme! > < group name=helpme!! > < ref group=???what ! ! ! >'''. I don't believe the WP NOTES article displays the tool-tag for that particular operation. Over the past 6 days I have reviewed each of the separate sections of the Biblical literalist chronology draft page, made corrections to them, proofread them, and just now had intended to redirect obvious [notes/not references] to the NOTES section preparatory to a final overall proofread, but it became a frustrating exercise due to ignorance of the proper multiple-use tag for the notes-reflist. Your practiced Wikipedian expertise would be most appreciated. —"In the meantime, in between time..."— Presumptuously anticipating your response and help, I'll just go back and proofread the draft as a whole for readability and smoothness and to correct any remaining defects I can identify. With that remaining, and the refs redirects to be made to the NOTES section, the draft otherwise seems complete. Thanks a lot for your consideration. I really appreciate it. With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ready for your review
Please forgive the posting here; I don't know how to use the "ping" feature. Anyway, the draft of Biblical literalist chronology is ready for you to critique. I've "said all I can say" on the subject (and I added "Bloat" to the Talk page section "answers to objections"), so feel free to go ahead and make improvements to it as you would to your own article. I'll wait about a week, to give you and the rest of the WP community opportunity to review the article and make whatever improvements y'all deem necessary to make it a good one, and then I'll check back at the site (next Thursday evening 26th December) just to read the revised WP-community-improved version we've developed together and submit it. I'm fully confident that whatever changes are made by experienced Wikipedians will certainly be justified. You won't get any "Squeaking and Hollering" from me. With respect, and best wishes for the coming year. Pax vobiscum. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Whale
Er, no, I don't think it's fine at all. It may have been ignored or overlooked for a long time but no, it really won't do. I could remove it now but would rather we discussed it, there are already suggestions on the talk page, which you have perhaps overlooked - please let's talk there. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE we need to reduce and reword. See discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that repeated reversion contrary to discussion, with the claim that it is "unexplained", is inappropriate and even if done slowly constitutes edit-warring. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pants on fire. —TPD