This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the section on the city to its own page. The town is notable enough outside the context of the Apocalypse. Pilatus 09:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I'll do some more interlinking -- Doc (?) 09:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
So the content of this article isn't going to be deleted, right? -- Brasswatchman 00:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
That depends on the current VfD debate - but right now it looks highly unlikely -- Doc (?) 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Added to the " Cold or hot" section - the first and third paragraphs (after the biblical quote) contradict the middle paragraph. If someone can confirm the second, I recommend removing the first and third paragraphs (and citing a source, of course!). Puddleglum 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the survey books of the Bible that I've read, the Laodocian metaphor of the tepid nature of their water is presented as accepted fact, and moreover is in accordance with the fact that their church were apathetic or unzealoous in their faith. See Understanding the Bible, by Harris, and Introduction to the Bible books by Hauer and by Fant. Also, the NSRV Access Bible.
The Council of Laodicea in AD 363-64 is not a "Later reference to the Laodicean Church". That's why I deleted it. I suppose that if the section heading were renamed, it could be relevant, but I had assumed that the link to the city would be sufficient. Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this article clearly does not belong in the Biblical criticism category based on the other articles in the category( [1]), which are about critical methods and issues in Biblical interpretation. Why do you think it should be included in the category? Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Laodician" was the winning word in the latest spelling bee, and I see this article already got messed with...with some trivial, minor info weakly related to the etymology of the word "laodician" getting moved into the lead! Reverted for now, probably more of these sorts of activities to come for another couple days or two. Tendancer ( talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the section on the city to its own page. The town is notable enough outside the context of the Apocalypse. Pilatus 09:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I'll do some more interlinking -- Doc (?) 09:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
So the content of this article isn't going to be deleted, right? -- Brasswatchman 00:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
That depends on the current VfD debate - but right now it looks highly unlikely -- Doc (?) 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Added to the " Cold or hot" section - the first and third paragraphs (after the biblical quote) contradict the middle paragraph. If someone can confirm the second, I recommend removing the first and third paragraphs (and citing a source, of course!). Puddleglum 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the survey books of the Bible that I've read, the Laodocian metaphor of the tepid nature of their water is presented as accepted fact, and moreover is in accordance with the fact that their church were apathetic or unzealoous in their faith. See Understanding the Bible, by Harris, and Introduction to the Bible books by Hauer and by Fant. Also, the NSRV Access Bible.
The Council of Laodicea in AD 363-64 is not a "Later reference to the Laodicean Church". That's why I deleted it. I suppose that if the section heading were renamed, it could be relevant, but I had assumed that the link to the city would be sufficient. Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this article clearly does not belong in the Biblical criticism category based on the other articles in the category( [1]), which are about critical methods and issues in Biblical interpretation. Why do you think it should be included in the category? Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Laodician" was the winning word in the latest spelling bee, and I see this article already got messed with...with some trivial, minor info weakly related to the etymology of the word "laodician" getting moved into the lead! Reverted for now, probably more of these sorts of activities to come for another couple days or two. Tendancer ( talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)