Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Random question: Fine with me. Would you like to do this?
Line 855: Line 855:  
:Good point.  I'm open to including other [[Old Testament]] books.  I think the [[New Testament]] is complete, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:Good point.  I'm open to including other [[Old Testament]] books.  I think the [[New Testament]] is complete, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::Yes, the New Testament is complete. Several Old Testament books are also complete. I recommend pulling the original source from the "KJV with Apocrypha" whenever possible to remain consistent with the rest of the project. This could really be of value to Catholic/Orthodox readers, and even some of the Protestant Reformers said that these books are good to read even if not canonical.--[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:09, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::Yes, the New Testament is complete. Several Old Testament books are also complete. I recommend pulling the original source from the "KJV with Apocrypha" whenever possible to remain consistent with the rest of the project. This could really be of value to Catholic/Orthodox readers, and even some of the Protestant Reformers said that these books are good to read even if not canonical.--[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:09, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Fine with me.  Would you like to do this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Navigation menu