1,066
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: +
actually
:King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
== Dates ==
== Dates ==
Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)