curprev04:4204:42, 25 June 2024 Epipelagictalkcontribs m14,952 bytes+405 reinstate inappropriate deletion of material. This passage is about religious proscriptions on eels which applied in two radically different historic times and cultural settings. To wipe out all mention of one, as well as the citation which clarifies the context, merely because both ultimately originate from a common source, makes no sense.undoTag: Undo
curprev01:0901:09, 25 June 2024 Bzweebltalkcontribs 14,547 bytes−405 The prohibition of eating eels in Judaism is because of that section of the Old Testament (which isn’t specific to the King James translation)undoTags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
curprev11:3011:30, 22 January 2022 No essential naturetalkcontribs 13,431 bytes+148 →Sustainability: Added quote from https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/freshwater-fish/eel because the quote implied only Greenpeace consider it endangered, & had it on their own endangered list. Whereas it's actually listed in this highly endangered category on this most authoritative list.undoTags: Mobile editMobile web edit
curprev06:0306:03, 4 January 2021 Bukhariantalkcontribs 13,315 bytes−56 Removed details unsupported by source. There is no indication in the source regarding beliefs of eel physiology. Source does not mention eels. Removed "which were erroneously believed to lack fins or scales."undo
3 January 2021
curprev11:4411:44, 3 January 2021 Epipelagictalkcontribs m13,371 bytes+56 the King James version, which is the cited version of the bible, says "All that are in the waters: all that... hath not fins and scales ye may not eat". Eels can have both fins and scales. There is nothing specific about ventral fins in the King James version. Do not reinstate your version unless you can find reliable supporting sources.undoTag: Manual revert
curprev04:2804:28, 3 January 2021 Bukhariantalkcontribs m13,315 bytes−56 This text is improved for a number of reasons. It accurately refers to the Bible instead of "King James version of the Old Testament," as the source of biblical dietary prohibitions are not from the translation of the bible, but from the content of the bible. Thus the version of the translation is irrelevant, the prohibitions exist in all translations including the "King James." Further, the original text makes an unverified claim that "erroneously believed to lack fins or scales" and lacks a pundoTag: Reverted