Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Why describe it when we can transcribe it?) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough. | Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I alos uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 05:43, March 11, 2007
no discussion of the Bible? Muchodelcrazy 00:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Article is too brief!
This is The Bible! Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:
- Intro
- Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
- History of the Bible...as in who wrote it.
- Why the world accepts/rejects it.
- Current status
- Include pics and charts and links.
What say you? Karajou 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)
Why describe it when we can transcribe it?
Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.
- Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.
- I alos uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? Karajou 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)