Talk:Conversion of Paul the Apostle

message: I wanted to say I made changes to the translations section
* We don't need five sources. Four is good to provide a balance (neither preferring the "old" or the "new")
* We want to present a neutral case. Why is the KJV being called a " classic Protestant translation"? Really? Do Catholics not use it? Don't the LDS use it officially (hint: yes!) here and here are my sources
*We don't need a specific "Catholic" edition for the same reasons
*I kept the NRSV in because it has a Protestant and Catholic editions (containing the apocrypha/deutros)
*We should not pass WP:OR on the translations, no opinions. "attempt" to smooth out and "recent Evangelical" are also incorrect statements
*Even this Catholic site does not recommend against the NIV, just to be careful of "Protestant" doctrines:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide
*Finally the NET is certainly a inter-denominational translation. They say so themselves:
https://netbible.com/2019/07/08/preface-to-the-net-bible-apocrypha/
Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I would reduce this further and just keep the NRSV and the NIV. Citing one example of each group is enough, because apart from the point being illustrated, there is very little difference between them. Although I didn't put these in, I am pretty sure the original aim was to include a Catholic and a Protestant example (you can't be serious about the KJV not being Protestant - who reads it is quite beside the point) but since traditional Catholic and Protestant opinions are both in agreement with modern scholarship here, a modern scholarly text is all we need. And the NIV is all we need for the "harmonizing" translation. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Quite right! No idea when that slipped in, but it used to say "traditional". Reverting. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: I tweaked "(The Road to Damascus) is normally dated to AD 34–37 which is 4-7 years after Jesus' Crucifixion on Friday April 7, 30 AD." 99.169.79.198 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bothered that this is unsourced. So little is really known about the historical Jesus that such a precise date for the crucifiction is impossible. Even if we accept the bible narratives as accurate, which is a big ask, you still can't deduce that date from them. So this is a later tradition, but whose? Is it Catholic tradition? I have no idea. So we need a source, and we need information about what version of the legend it is. The same goes for the date of Paul's conversion. If it is historical at all, where does that date come from? We need both a source and an explanation. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: yes, I know that three references are given for the Paul date. All three are Evangelical publishers, and all three are books for the general lay reader. My point is that in a case like this we need to see where the information is coming from beyond that.--Doric Loon (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the date of the crucifixion indicated in the article should be eliminated.It seems to me that there are no reliable impartial sources that guarantee with certainty the year in which the event occurred (if it actually happened), much less the exact month and day. FranzBarron (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. And since nobody else has commented since I flagged the problem quarter of a year ago, I shall go ahead and do that. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The Road to Damascus' AD 34–37 was 4-7 years after Jesus' Crucifixion on Friday April 7, 30 AD 

message: Voice 197.254.166.171 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtues portrayed by paul after his conversion 

message: Reflecting art works. 103.171.89.103 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflecting art works.