Disputatio:Libri deuterocanonici

Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae “Deuterocanonical books” sitūs en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.

Català

Aquesta pàgina es basa en una traducció de „Deuterocanonical books“ a en.wikipedia.org. Podeu trobar la llista d'editors aquí.

Deutsch

Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von „Deuterocanonical books“ aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.

English language

English

The attached page originated as a translation from the page “Deuterocanonical books” on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.

Esperanto

La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de “Deuterocanonical books” el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.

Pagina[fontem recensere]

The whole text of this article: " ". Have we read that right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:59, 7 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iacobus, it's good that you watch over this articles! The article is in the works. Perhaps I can have a full sentence within the week. Keep up the good work! --Jondel (disputatio) 06:40, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a five-word sentence. "Deuterocanonica", assuming it's neuter plural, should have a plural verb. A closer translation of the English pagename would be "libri deuterocanonici" (which would also want a plural verb).

Contrary to the claim in this sentence, it's a question whether the books to which this word applies are of the Bible, or not of the Bible. That question, to which different believers give different answers, is the only reason why the word exists. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To remove confusion, perhaps we should move the lemma to "Libri deuterocanonici". The future article would be a translation of the corresponding English.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:11, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that move would be a good idea :)

The sentence is better now, but (as you may already realise) it's even more complicated. Protestants generally don't accept these books as canonical, and Protestant Bibles often exclude them. However, you can't say everything in the first sentence! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great let's move it! I will try to have a sufficient passage by the end of the week. The best things ussually require steady moderate effort. Your patience is highly appreciated. --Jondel (disputatio) 23:40, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't moved, so I've done that now. There isn't much visible text yet :) I don't know why some words are struck out. But the article is still evidently in progress. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 26 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move Andrew. The strike out is to alllow seeing the progress. A significant amount of text was recently inserted.--Jondel (disputatio) 20:19, 26 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]