:: 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)
:::By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have [http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_34.html a pat answer]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
== 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)