21:2821:28, 16 October 2009diffhist−172
Development of the Christian biblical canon
sorry, I will have to edit the last changes: (1) the relevance of replacement theology to OT canon: what is your point? this makes no sense; (2) differences really are minor, as no text is added, removed, or changed; (3) MT came along centuries later
15:5215:52, 22 September 2009diffhist−1,628
Flat cap
Removed dubious other names section. The translations are non-specific, sometimes wrong, and certainly untrustworthy.
17:1817:18, 8 September 2009diffhist−409
Belt (clothing)
→Belt Direction: 'should' is a very subjective judgement, and does not even claim to follow empirical data; discussion of knights confused from a different anecdote; whole section highly questionable
16:2516:25, 8 September 2009diffhist−448
Belt (clothing)
→Belt Direction: 'should' is a very subjective judgement, and does not even claim to follow empirical data; discussion of knights confused from a different anecdote; whole section highly questionable
00:3900:39, 31 August 2009diffhist0
Double-breasted
Change back to original text (there had been warring over this for some reason; thanks to Mqa for noticing it ended up in the wrong way by mistake)
21:2821:28, 16 October 2009diffhist−172
Development of the Christian biblical canon
sorry, I will have to edit the last changes: (1) the relevance of replacement theology to OT canon: what is your point? this makes no sense; (2) differences really are minor, as no text is added, removed, or changed; (3) MT came along centuries later
15:5215:52, 22 September 2009diffhist−1,628
Flat cap
Removed dubious other names section. The translations are non-specific, sometimes wrong, and certainly untrustworthy.
17:1817:18, 8 September 2009diffhist−409
Belt (clothing)
→Belt Direction: 'should' is a very subjective judgement, and does not even claim to follow empirical data; discussion of knights confused from a different anecdote; whole section highly questionable
16:2516:25, 8 September 2009diffhist−448
Belt (clothing)
→Belt Direction: 'should' is a very subjective judgement, and does not even claim to follow empirical data; discussion of knights confused from a different anecdote; whole section highly questionable
00:3900:39, 31 August 2009diffhist0
Double-breasted
Change back to original text (there had been warring over this for some reason; thanks to Mqa for noticing it ended up in the wrong way by mistake)