Talk:Christianity/Archive 20

message: The third paragraph of this level 3 section needs work if it is to fit with the section - only the first sentence seems to fit with the section title.  Here is the current version "Jews see the Torah as the most important part of the Bible, most Christians regard the Gospels, which tell of the life and teachings of Jesus, as central. Ornamental books of the four gospels are sometimes used in church liturgies. These may be carried into the church in procession and laid upon the altar during the first part of the service. The "gospel" means the "good news" of the Christian message, which Christians regularly disseminate to others. This may include missionary work as well as the translation and distribution of Bibles, as practiced by Gideons International, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Jehovah's Witnesses and others." GRBerry 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptures/Authority and different parts of the bible 

message: I did some edits today, deleting the sentence on what Jews think is most important in the Bible.  In an article on Christianity I did not think it was of value.  In addtion, I deleted a recent addition on bring scritpures to the alter.  It just doesn't apply to this section; but if it fits somewhere else I see no problem in cluding it.
We really do have to be careful with our edits.  When we do not take the entire article into account we begin to be repetitious and state things that don't apply to the topic at hand.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority of different sections of the Bible

message: I remember more posts in the "Section break for convenience:Egypt" section.  What happened with those replies?
:Maybe the software bug struck. I didn't notice anything missing, but if I'm away from a talk page for several hours, I often select the option of seeing a comparison between the last version I had seen and the current one, rather than clicking on each separate diff. That way, it's easy to miss a few posts that were swallowed up by the bug. If you feel strongly about it, check all the diffs in the history from the time you think those posts were there, find the missing ones, and restore them. (A tedious job — I've done it on numerous occasions.) And I'd like to appeal to everyone, please, if you've made a post, could you click on the diff for that post immediately afterwards, to make sure you didn't swallow up anything. If it goes unnoticed until four or five other editors have posted, it's a nightmare trying to restore the missing bits. AnnH ♫ 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeming Deletion of Conversation 

message: I have archived past discussions. If you are missing anything, please look at 29. --Andrew c 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving #29

message: I'm going to change the format from using citebook to ref tags.  We'll use the format I have seen on the other pages, including what I've been converting to in Hermeticism since I have a lot of information to cite in upcoming changes, and the ref tags are much more usable.  We ref to the citation, and citebook is used under sources.  This allows me to eventually make clearer citations using less code.
KV 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Change