Talk:Ritual Decalogue

1362:

tried deleting the article, then they tried deleting statements that the RD is called the TCs, now they're claiming it isn't called 'the TCs', it's called 'aseret ha-dvarîm', as if there were any real difference. People don't posit the RD because of how Exodus reads in just the Hebrew; the connection is just as apparent in translation. I wouldn't have such a problem if they could (or would) support this with sources, but they're pushing a personal POV against the weight of the sources. So no, when people try compromising the integrity of an article, I'm not willing to compromise. Not that I'm not willing to accept criticism; many of the "

1726:

before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. By the modern times, the two have been conflated and both are often referred to as Passover (even the Knowledge article on Passover fails to clearly differentiate the two). The Ritual Decalogue text does not conflate the two (which is evident, for example, in the sacrifice being required to be consumed by the morning, whilst Hag HaMatzot is not a one evening feast, but rather lasts a week). Whatever the source is for this assertion (again, no citation is given), the source would seem to not be a reliable source if it does not know there is a difference between Pesach and Hag haMatzot. —

440: 228: 165: 77: 87: 53: 323: 302: 1180:

an oft-repeated reading of Exodus is that it's the Ten Commandments—and yet it's not the Ten Commandments of traditional and popular conception. The term "Ten Commandments" is key: without that, it would just be another passage in Exodus. Yet several of you are intent on distancing it as much as possible from the phrase "Ten Commandments". I don't know why you feel so strongly about this, but none of you have given a good reason for it. —

957:

28 uses the phrase "Ten Commandments" is a distortion that confuses the issue and the reader, particularly when we are also using the phrase to mean various lists of laws in Exodus in Deuteronomy. You have, in fact, argued that we should tell the reader that "Ten Commandments" means three different lists of laws in the Pentateuch; now you are also arguing that we should use it to refer to a specific two-word phrase in Exodus 34:28, a

515:) which follows "all the words of YHWH" at the end of v. 3 is an interpolation, since it is wanting after the other mentions of the said "words" in 3b, 4, and 8 end. Its purpose is to teachings and commandments to instruct them," conclude by revealing that the tablets contained nothing other than "the terms of the covenant, the Ten Words" (34:28), and this phrase can only refer to "The First Ritual Decalogue," Exod. 23:10–27. 333: 22: 411: 1341:

Kwami, if you want to get anywhere close to a version that might satisfy you, you will need to work towards consensus and not reverting. You might have personal problems with the consensus version (which appears to be a defining feature in some of your edit wars that I've witnessed), but please recognise the need for consensus. Would it help if we got the page protected to force consensus forming?

218: 197: 1209:

good reason for using it, so where does that leave us? WP is written in English. That's the default. I don't need an argument to adhere to the default language, you need an argument to depart from it. So far all you've said is that Hebrew is clearer to our readers than English is, and that "ten things" is less ambiguous than "ten commandments". Neither holds water. —

748:, we are in another edit war. The phrase עשרת הדברים is generally translated as "Ten Commandments" in English, including the translations we use for this article, so it is obviously the wording which should be used in the lede. As for the claim that "Ths is not a literal translation and in fact its meaning is quite loaded and prone to misunderstanding", 1143:. That's good, clear writing that the reader can easily understand. Now you want to call c) the "Ten Commandments", despite insisting that we cannot call a) or b) the "Ten Commandments", and despite the fact that it turns clarity into ambiguity. That's an inconsistent argument that, of course, actually "makes no sense", and is bad writing to boot. 1534:

working off the Hebrew. Ginsberg even believed the RD was an interpolation, and the phrase 'TCs' originally referred to the covenant code! I have not seen any ref by any of these scholars to the section break, and I imagine that it is not considered original to the text. (Though I do not know that, which is why I'd like to see more on this.)

1208:

Considering that you just demonstrated above that you don't know what English is, or how it differs from Hebrew, I'm not sure how much value to place in your opinion of what "bad writing" is. I see your version as clearly violating NPOV, being unclear, and being bad writing, and you haven't given any

1691:

I took that to mean that we should follow the Masoretic rather than Christian divisions, when both are recent compared to Exodus. I think it would be valuable to add a mention of that marker and how it relates to the traditional POV if you can find a ref for it. I just don't see how it's relevant to

1533:

3300 BP? Really? We have no evidence the Torah is that old. Most estimates I've seen are than the older large texts are ca. 800 BCE, but they have presumably been redacted many times since. Our Jackson ref says of the TCs = the RD, "That, no doubt, is the sense intended by the redactors", and he was

1404:

You are still repeatedly editing against the views of a number of editors. In Ex 34, the standard view is that "aseret ha-dvarîm" refers to the 10C listed in Ex20. The only way to apply these to the ten commandments listed in Ex 34 you would need to apply an interpretation that has not existed until

1340:

I too support the use of the actual Hebrew phrase, followed by the various English translations. It is obvious that this is necessary for the logical flow of this section. Repeatedly reverting and saying "use English" is far from helpful when so obviously outnumbered by editors who feel differently.

1059:

Saying "the phrase 'Ten Commandments'" makes it clear that we're speaking of the words themselves, not what they refer to. That's the normal way of disambiguating such things in English. There are two things here: the phrase itself, which occurs three times in the OT (we of course identify which one

1513:

I wasn't suggesting that my POV above should be added to the article, but it goes to show why traditional folk have such enormous difficulty with the RD. Again, of course, the traditional view is that the Torah as we have it in the present form is essentially unchanged since 3300 years ago. I think

1179:

Not when it violates NPOV. I don't know if this offends religious sensibilities or what the problem is, but accepting it would be rather like accepting the consensus that astrologers have for astrology. The point is very simple: the RD is notable, not because it's a recasting of the CC, but because

1154:

No, that's not good, clear writing, because the average reader does not know Hebrew. I'm not turning c) into 'the TCs', the KJV turned it into 'the TCs'. The majority of modern English translations of the Bible also turn it into 'the TCs'. The average reader knows it as 'the TCs'. Therefore that is

1038:

Because the lede refers to all these different things, it must be careful to be explicit about which meaning is meant. And, generally, it is; except, in this case, where you are arguing we should introduce ambiguity for reasons that are unclear. If we were mentioning Jesus Franco in the lede of the

956:

is an English transliteration of a Hebrew term which does not, in fact, translate literally or directly as "Ten Commandments". The literal translation, as many sources point out, is "Ten Words". "Ten Commandments" is a common interpretation of the term. Claiming at this point in the lede that verse

1725:

Number of issues with this. First, no citations. Second, it refers to commandment numberings "above" which are not in the text above it. Third, there is a confusion between Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover (Pesach) is the lamb sacrifice ritual and feast which occurs the evening

1664:

It may be that they believe strongly, and they may be a large number, but those that think Moses penned the bible certainly are a minority, even among the religious. And yes, I do think keeping MPOV from receiving undue weight IS assisting in writing the article, even if members of that minority

1474:

However, the oldest Torahs aren't all that old either. At least not compared to when Exodus is supposed to have been written. If you want to argue that the phrase TCs cannot refer to the RD because of that section break, that the section break is original to the text, you need a ref to support it.

1361:

article, where we have a consensus (among astrologers) of downplaying the fact that it's pseudoscience. At first they tried deleting that term altogether; now they're trying to water it down by saying 'some' people 'consider' it to be pseudoscience. We have a parallel development here: First they

558:

In a statement now in Archive 2, steve kap was highly critical of the "Interpretations" section, and I think some of his criticisms were reasonale. I think this is good research and precisely the kind of work we need to make the "interpretation" section more scholarly. Ginsberg was an important

536:

writer, as will be demonstrated in Chapter VI. Note, therefore, that Exod 34:1 says that YHWH—not, like v.27, that Moses—will write on the tablets, and that without the intrusion of vv. 10–27 the natural referent of "and he wrote" in v.28b is the "YHWH" of v.28a. It follows that "the terms of the

1194:

Your wording violates NPOV, is unclear, and is bad writing; those are all very good reasons not to use it, and you clearly haven't given any good reason for using it. That's the consensus here, because it's factual and accurate. Focus on making arguments about article content, not irrelevant and

1356:

But we've always used the Hebrew. That's not the issue. It's not about style, or bad writing, or ambiguity: The several editors here have consistently tried to downplay the "Ten Commandments" aspect of this, which after all is the whole point of the article: the RD text is given its own name

1688:

In a Torah scroll, a new line is used here (see here, marked with a {פ}). As you know, the chapter numbering in the Bible was introduced by Christians. There is therefore no reason to presume that the section using the words "aseret ha-dvarîm" has any logical relationship with the

1169:

Your view that your wording is better is unique to you, whereas at least four other editors here agree with my rationale. You've reverted this sentence 6 times now, and been reverted in turn by 3 different editors. Wouldn't it make more sense to accept the obvious consensus?

1685:

JFDWolff, perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying. Yes, of course, in the traditional view Masoretic markings have everything to do with content. However, for biblical scholars who use terms like RD, they have little or nothing to do with content. When you said,

1720:

Several scholars believe that the commandment numbered 8 above is a later addition, for here Passover called by its modern name. Elsewhere none of the feasts have their modern names; Passover, for example, is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread in commandment 3.

993:

It doesn't literally mean "ten words", but is even more general than that. More like "ten items". But the traditional English translation, the translation used by the KJV and by most 20th-century bibles, and the most familiar English translation (and for most the

1552:

Which "recent changes" are you referring to? As to the traditional view on the age of the Torah, this is not the right forum for that discussion, but 3300 years ago is the age and there is just as little evidence for redactors and J and E and whatever not.

1607:“..tradional view”- Is this part of the same tradition that sees these texts as being dictated to Moses? If so, let’s remind ourselves that this is a minority point of view. Almost fringe, maybe. I mean, Moses is a fictional character, after all. 580:

Content aside, only talking about format, shouldn't it be folded in with the "Academic Interpretation" section? Otherwise, it has the impression that eductated people think this, un educated people think that. Which I don't think is the case.

1467:

You may disagree with that interpretation, but this article is not about what we think. It's about what our sources say. And we have multiple RS's that the phrase refers to the RD. These includes several Jewish scholars who read the Torah in

1590:

You really don't need to point out to me that {פ} is a Masoretic marker. I tried to explain the relevance of paragraph and section breaks in the Torah. According to the traditional view, it has an awful lot to do with content.

1047:

is a much easier way of disambiguating than writing "the phrase in Exodus 34:28 that is usually translated as 'Ten Commandments'", and is obviously much more clear than the ambiguous wordings you have been trying to insert.

1478:

As for putting the TCs in lower case, that again is OR. Every English translation I'm aware of uses upper case for 'the Ten Commandments' in v. 28. We should follow our sources here just as we do elsewhere. —

751:

that's the whole point, isn't it? If it weren't so loaded, people would write so much about the RD. And as for the claim that "it is unencyclopedic to claim that the Hebrew Bible was written in English",

1409:

to the RD without modifiers. Your latest version suggests that by using the words "aseret ha-dvarîm" at the end of the RD, that turns the RD into Ten Commandments. This is wrong. It will continue to be

1413:

The section in the Pentateuch that uses the words "aseret ha-dvarîm" is separated by the RD by a section break in all classical versions of the Torah. In a Torah scroll, a new line is used here (see

1625:

I think you'll find that while it might be a minority view amongst atheists using the internet, it is a strongly held view by the very large number of people who elect to read the Bible literally.

1417:, marked with a {פ}). As you know, the chapter numbering in the Bible was introduced by Christians. There is therefore no reason to presume that the section using the words "aseret ha-dvarîm" has 1421:

logical relationship with the other. According to Jewish tradition, some sections were dictated to Moses in a completely different order (for instance, Numbers 1:1 was obviously dictated a month

1009:

because there's a guy named Jesus down the street. We add the etymology of a phrase in a parenthetical, a footnote, or a section on etymology. We don't use it as the general term of reference. —

1781: 1587:

English to Hebrew is necessary (according to a large number of editors) because of the ambiguity in translating these words. You would be editing against consensus by changing that back.

1357:

precisely because it *is* called the "Ten Commandments", at least in the opinion of the scholars who use the term RD. How can we in good faith downplay that central aspect? It's like the

914:

No matter how you cut it, you can't get "three reverts so far today" when there were not three reverts in a 24-hour period, as you know. Or under 24 hrs, or you couldn't say "so far". —

804:

Please address issues for an article on the talk page of that article. Or at least tell us which article you're talking about. (For the record, the other two reverts would seem to be at

490:

Given how respected Ginsberg is, we should probably cover this. (I think it was his last book.) However, I can only access snippets of it in GoogleBooks, and haven't yet found a copy.

1514:

you are currently the only person who insists on the changes that you wish to make, so I suggest that accept consensus, or alternatively go through the dispute resolution process.

1799: 1795: 1629:. They may not be as enlightened as you, but that does make their views illegitimate. Your view that Moses is fictional is similarly disputed by roughly the same people. There's 1425:

Numbers 9:1 - hence the Talmud's pronouncement אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה / the sections of the Torah are not arranged in chronological order, see e.g. Babylonean Talmud Pesahim 6b).

520:

This term, as also (so far as I know) the very discovery that Exod. 23:10 ff. is a decalogue, is my own. The practice has hitherto been—in emulation of Johannes Wolfgang Goethe,

1060:

we're talking about), and the passages the phrase refers to. The latter, regardless of what they are, are obviously not what we mean, because we have dab'd w the wording "

1023:

Well, it literally means "Ten Things" or perhaps "Ten Items". In any event, we're using an English transliteration here precisely because we need to disambiguate between

1471:

The traditional division in the Torah is exactly the kind of view I've repeatedly asked for. If you can find a ref that says as much, we should add it to the article.

1005:

Saying that we need to use the Hebrew rather than the English because the English is ambiguous (as if the Hebrew weren't!) is like saying we need to call Jesus

763: 178: 173: 63: 1366:

doesn't mean 'Ten Commandments'" editors have made valuable contributions to the article, correcting some severe problems with it, and I'm glad for it. —

1637:; last time I checked, the latter was a vital content policy. Are you were to assist in the writing of this article, or are you using the talk page as a 155: 389: 1666: 1608: 1261: 891:

So we have 2011 March 31 02:01, 2011 April 1 17:13, 2011 April 2 20:44, and 2011 April 3 10:09. Again, how is that "three reverts so far today"? —

864:

That's once on April 1, once on April 2, and once on April 3, in my time zone. How does that make "three reverts so far today" in any time zone? —

582: 421: 1224: 284: 1866: 1737: 149: 645: 567: 550: 485: 879: 835: 636:

I think it's useful to distinguish interpretation of the RD as a whole from the individual laws. We need better section titles, though. —

615: 590: 1283: 1705: 1581: 1546: 1488: 1438: 1375: 1351: 754:

that's just silly. There is no such claim; we use English on English WP. Translations should be made in parentheticals or in footnotes.

1674: 1651: 1616: 1847: 1235: 1218: 1203: 1189: 1174: 1164: 1147: 1116: 1052: 1018: 969: 932: 923: 909: 900: 886: 113: 1777:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1530:

But since that is the traditional reading, we should include it in the article! We say nothing about the section break in the Torah.

1311: 1297: 873: 859: 821: 795: 721: 683: 1896: 1269: 379: 982:

the term, whose reference scholars have debated. The phrase "Ten Commandments" in its biblical context translates only one thing,

1711: 965:- which is commonly translated as "Ten Words" or "Ten Commandments" - clarifies. Our goal here is clarity for the common reader. 1537:

So, as far as I can see, the recent changes are not supported by our refs, and even go against them. DR may be the way to go. —

1881: 1871: 274: 522:

Zwei wichtige bisher unerörterte biblische Fragen, zum ersten Mal gründlich beantwortet von einem Landgeistlichen in Schwaben

121: 1886: 1861: 905:

Your time settings are different, but in any event, for reversion purposes a "day" is any 24-hour period, as you know.

355: 1102:

Because the lede refers to all these different things, it must be careful to be explicit about which meaning is meant.

1891: 1767: 1759: 354:-related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 1692:

the POV this article is concentrating on: Our sources make it abundantly clear that scholars using terms like "RD"

250: 117: 776: 1876: 1742: 752: 749: 461: 457: 453: 1798:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1572:{פ} is just a Masoretic marker, BTW. It has no more to do with content than the Christian chapter numbers do. — 1601: 1563: 1524: 125: 101: 58: 537:

Covenant, the Ten Words" means the ritual decalogue of 23:10ff., whose constituent elements are identified p.

346: 307: 1199:

speculations about other editors' "religious sensibilities" or what you imagine they "feel strongly" about.

1064:'Ten Commandments'". Putting it in Hebrew clarifies nothing; I can simply parrot your argument back to you: 843: 839: 712:

Huh? How can an opinion be "untrue"? And why would any source address the outline of a Knowledge article? —

1842: 1733: 33: 241: 202: 1817:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1508: 1758:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 855: 791: 679: 1260:

Jayjd, please review "This is not a forum". What specific changes, based on sources, do you propuse?

670:

Untrue. Though if you can find a reliable source that backs you up, you can mention that opinion. -

417: 1127:

of them "Ten Commandments", specifically to avoid ambiguity. Instead, in the lede we call a) and b)

249:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1833: 1727: 805: 1802:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

559:

scholar, although dated, and it is important to provide this scholarship in its proper context.

1818: 612: 564: 1805: 1701: 1577: 1542: 1484: 1371: 1307: 1279: 1214: 1185: 1160: 1112: 1014: 1002:

doesn't "clarify for the common reader" who only knows the phrase in its English translation.

919: 896: 869: 817: 809: 772: 717: 641: 546: 500: 39: 1475:

And then it will only support the traditional POV, since our sources disagree on this point.

1825: 990:. That is uncontroversial. It you think there is some controversy, pls provide a reference. 1428:

Nothing will ever be resolved in this article unless we can get the above crystal clear.

607:

Then perhaps the whole "interpretations" and "academic interpretations" should be merged?

410: 8: 1670: 1612: 1265: 739: 586: 21: 1784:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1646: 1638: 1596: 1558: 1519: 1433: 1346: 782:

Kwami, that's three reverts so far today. Are you sure you know what you're doing? -

1824:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

608: 560: 1043:

article, we'd also have to disambiguate them in some way; it turns out that writing

1751: 1697: 1573: 1538: 1480: 1367: 1303: 1275: 1210: 1181: 1156: 1108: 1010: 915: 892: 865: 813: 768: 758: 744:

As part of the ongoing attempt to purge the lede of the phrase "Ten Commandments",

713: 637: 542: 1768:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090527163818/http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344

1755: 1630: 92: 1634: 1293: 851: 787: 675: 528:

Ritual Decalogue" and to apply the term to the covenant of Exod. 34:10–27. But

338: 1790:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 470: 1855: 1642: 1592: 1554: 1515: 1429: 1342: 1196: 878:

Once on April 2 and twice on April 3. And, of course, the original revert on

439: 1414: 493:

Ah, I can splice a bit more of it together from a quotation in Smith (1997)

474: 1771: 1107:

That, of course, makes no sense, but neither does the original argument. —

233: 112:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1791: 1288:

I too like Jay's version better.It is clearer IMO. I will revert to it.--

767:. But what's good enough for that article is good enough for this one. — 476: 1232: 1200: 1171: 1144: 1049: 966: 929: 906: 883: 1032:

c) "Ten Commandments" meaning a two-word Hebrew phrase in Exodus 34:28

1358: 1289: 847: 783: 671: 164: 961:

meaning of the term! Explaining that the Pentateuch uses the phrase

472: 108: 86: 998:

familiar translation) is "the ten commandments". Using the Hebrew

1696:

see Ex34:28 as part of the same narrative as the rest of Ex34. —

1569:

Changing English to Hebrew, and making the phrase TCs lower case.

1035:

d) (according to you) "Ten Commandments" meaning Exodus 34:11-26.

351: 76: 52: 1716:

The last paragraph of the Academic Interpretation section reads

1405:

the 19th century. The phrase "Ten Commandments" (with capitals)

1129:

the "Ethical" Decalogue of Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21

322: 301: 1123:

We don't call them all the same thing, though; rather, we call

511:

What is more important is that the phrase "and all the rules" (

477: 1040: 246: 746:

which is the reason the the RD is notable in the first place

1626: 812:. What they have to do with this article I don't know.) — 1762:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

245:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 978:

No, it's not a "fourth meaning of the term", it simply

1071:

here precisely because we need to disambiguate between

217: 196: 433: 350:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 328: 223: 82: 1794:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 176:, a work group which is currently considered to be 532:is an interpolation which owes its existence to a 154:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1853: 1029:b) "Ten Commandments" meaning Deuteronomy 5:6–21 928:You've now made 4 reverts in the past 48 hours. 106:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 1780:This message was posted before February 2018. 1026:a) "Ten Commandments" meaning Exodus 20:2–17 757:Unless, of course, you are willing to move 1750:I have just modified one external link on 1092:meaning a two-word phrase in Exodus 34:28 1772:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344 986:, or the Greek or Latin translation of 19: 1854: 1302:How is it clearer, it your opinion? — 1867:Unknown-importance Religion articles 405: 344:This article is within the scope of 239:This article is within the scope of 172:This article is within the scope of 98:This article is within the scope of 15: 38:It is of interest to the following 13: 524:, dated Feb. 6, 1773—to speak of " 163: 14: 1908: 1754:. Please take a moment to review 505:The Israelian heritage of Judaism 420:on August 8, 2005. The result of 495:The pilgrimage pattern in Exodus 438: 409: 331: 321: 300: 226: 216: 195: 85: 75: 51: 20: 1897:Low-importance Judaism articles 1712:Passover & Unleavened Bread 1274:His revert makes that clear. — 1155:how we translate it as well. — 416:This article was nominated for 384:This article has been rated as 279:This article has been rated as 1848:17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC) 134:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 1882:Mid-importance Bible articles 1872:WikiProject Religion articles 364:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism 358:and see a list of open tasks. 253:and see a list of open tasks. 137:Template:WikiProject Religion 367:Template:WikiProject Judaism 7: 1067:... we're using an English 259:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 10: 1913: 1887:WikiProject Bible articles 1811:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1747:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1665:might find it irritating. 1085:meaning Deuteronomy 5:6–21 551:01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 530:the whole of Exod 34:10–27 486:Another "Ritual Decalogue" 390:project's importance scale 285:project's importance scale 262:Template:WikiProject Bible 156:project's importance scale 1862:B-Class Religion articles 1706:01:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 1675:17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1652:16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1617:15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1602:09:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1582:03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1564:22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1547:22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1525:21:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1489:20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1439:13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1376:07:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1352:06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1312:05:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1298:03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1284:00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 1270:00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 1236:05:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1219:05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1204:04:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1190:04:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1175:03:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1165:03:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1148:01:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1117:00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 1053:23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 1019:22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 970:21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 933:04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 924:00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 910:00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 901:22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 887:21:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 882:. So that's four so far. 874:21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 860:21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 834:All on this page, Kwami. 822:18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 796:18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 777:17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 722:04:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 684:04:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 646:16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 616:12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 591:22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 568:20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 383: 316: 278: 211: 171: 153: 70: 46: 1892:B-Class Judaism articles 1099:meaning Exodus 34:11-26. 124:standards, or visit the 1743:External links modified 1738:09:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 806:extended periodic table 1877:B-Class Bible articles 1095:d) (according to you) 1078:meaning Exodus 20:2–17 168: 28:This article is rated 810:digraph (orthography) 174:Interfaith work group 167: 1792:regular verification 1137:the Ritual Decalogue 880:08:54, 31 March 2011 102:WikiProject Religion 1782:After February 2018 1227:. Your comment was 844:17:09, 3 April 2011 840:03:44, 3 April 2011 836:00:13, 2 April 2011 347:WikiProject Judaism 1836:InternetArchiveBot 1787:InternetArchiveBot 169: 114:assess and improve 34:content assessment 1812: 1649: 1599: 1561: 1522: 1436: 1407:cannot be applied 1349: 1139:, and we call c) 483: 482: 432: 431: 404: 403: 400: 399: 396: 395: 295: 294: 291: 290: 242:WikiProject Bible 190: 189: 186: 185: 140:Religion articles 128:for more details. 1904: 1846: 1837: 1810: 1809: 1788: 1752:Ritual Decalogue 1730: 1647: 1627:Fringe it is not 1597: 1559: 1520: 1512: 1434: 1364:aseret ha-dvarîm 1347: 1197:policy violating 1141:aseret ha-dvarîm 1097:aseret ha-dvarîm 1090:Aseret ha-dvarîm 1083:Aseret ha-dvarîm 1076:Aseret ha-dvarîm 1045:aseret ha-dvarîm 1000:aseret ha-dvarîm 988:aseret ha-dvarîm 984:aseret ha-dvarîm 963:aseret ha-dvarîm 954:Aseret ha-dvarîm 764:aseret ha-dvarîm 759:Ten Commandments 478: 442: 434: 413: 406: 372: 371: 370:Judaism articles 368: 365: 362: 341: 336: 335: 334: 325: 318: 317: 312: 304: 297: 296: 267: 266: 263: 260: 257: 236: 231: 230: 229: 220: 213: 212: 207: 199: 192: 191: 142: 141: 138: 135: 132: 126:wikiproject page 95: 90: 89: 79: 72: 71: 66: 55: 48: 47: 31: 25: 24: 16: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1852: 1851: 1840: 1835: 1803: 1796:have permission 1786: 1760:this simple FaQ 1745: 1728: 1723: 1714: 1506: 1231:me. Try again. 1133:Exodus 34:11-26 742: 534:post-Deuteromic 488: 479: 473: 447: 369: 366: 363: 360: 359: 337: 332: 330: 310: 264: 261: 258: 255: 254: 232: 227: 225: 205: 139: 136: 133: 130: 129: 93:Religion portal 91: 84: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 1910: 1900: 1899: 1894: 1889: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1869: 1864: 1830: 1829: 1822: 1775: 1774: 1766:Added archive 1744: 1741: 1718: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1620: 1619: 1585: 1584: 1570: 1550: 1549: 1535: 1531: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1426: 1411: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1223:Please review 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1093: 1086: 1079: 1072: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1003: 991: 973: 972: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 827: 826: 825: 824: 799: 798: 741: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 573: 572: 571: 570: 539: 538: 517: 516: 513:w't kl hmšpṭym 487: 484: 481: 480: 475: 471: 469: 466: 465: 449: 448: 443: 437: 430: 429: 422:the discussion 414: 402: 401: 398: 397: 394: 393: 386:Low-importance 382: 376: 375: 373: 356:the discussion 343: 342: 339:Judaism portal 326: 314: 313: 311:Low‑importance 305: 293: 292: 289: 288: 281:Mid-importance 277: 271: 270: 268: 265:Bible articles 251:the discussion 238: 237: 221: 209: 208: 206:Mid‑importance 200: 188: 187: 184: 183: 170: 160: 159: 152: 146: 145: 143: 97: 96: 80: 68: 67: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1909: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1890: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1865: 1863: 1860: 1859: 1857: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1827: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1807: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1783: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1748: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1722: 1717: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1690: 1684: 1683: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1650: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1594: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1556: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1510: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1440: 1437: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1344: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1131:, we call d) 1130: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1063: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1001: 997: 992: 989: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 971: 968: 964: 960: 955: 952: 934: 931: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 912: 911: 908: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 890: 889: 888: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 802: 801: 800: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 766: 765: 760: 755: 753: 750: 747: 723: 719: 715: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 617: 614: 610: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 592: 588: 584: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 569: 566: 562: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518: 514: 510: 509: 508: 506: 502: 501:H.L. Ginsberg 498: 496: 491: 468: 467: 464: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 446: 441: 436: 435: 427: 423: 419: 415: 412: 408: 407: 391: 387: 381: 378: 377: 374: 357: 353: 349: 348: 340: 329: 327: 324: 320: 319: 315: 309: 306: 303: 299: 298: 286: 282: 276: 273: 272: 269: 252: 248: 244: 243: 235: 224: 222: 219: 215: 214: 210: 204: 201: 198: 194: 193: 181: 180: 175: 166: 162: 161: 157: 151: 148: 147: 144: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 105: 104: 103: 94: 88: 83: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 49: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 1834: 1831: 1806:source check 1785: 1779: 1776: 1749: 1746: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1693: 1687: 1633:and there's 1589: 1586: 1551: 1505: 1422: 1418: 1406: 1363: 1228: 1225:this comment 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1096: 1089: 1082: 1075: 1068: 1061: 1044: 1006: 999: 995: 987: 983: 979: 962: 958: 953: 762: 756: 745: 743: 609:Slrubenstein 561:Slrubenstein 540: 533: 529: 525: 521: 512: 504: 499: 494: 492: 489: 452: 444: 426:no consensus 425: 385: 345: 280: 240: 234:Bible portal 177: 116:articles to 107: 100: 99: 40:WikiProjects 1069:translation 740:use English 497:, p. 234: 1856:Categories 1843:Report bug 1729:al-Shimoni 1062:the phrase 64:Interfaith 1826:this tool 1819:this tool 1667:Steve kap 1609:Steve kap 1359:astrology 1262:Steve kap 583:Steve kap 1832:Cheers.— 1631:WP:TRUTH 856:contribs 792:contribs 680:contribs 445:Archives 418:deletion 179:inactive 131:Religion 109:Religion 59:Religion 1756:my edit 1641:again? 1635:WP:NPOV 1468:Hebrew. 507:, p46: 503:(1982) 388:on the 361:Judaism 352:Judaism 308:Judaism 283:on the 30:B-class 1689:other, 1410:wrong. 1233:Jayjg 1201:Jayjg 1172:Jayjg 1145:Jayjg 1050:Jayjg 1007:Yēšûă‘ 967:Jayjg 959:fourth 930:Jayjg 907:Jayjg 884:Jayjg 36:scale. 1698:kwami 1639:forum 1574:kwami 1539:kwami 1481:kwami 1423:after 1368:kwami 1304:kwami 1276:kwami 1229:about 1211:kwami 1182:kwami 1157:kwami 1109:kwami 1041:Jesus 1011:kwami 916:kwami 893:kwami 866:kwami 846:. - 814:kwami 769:kwami 714:kwami 638:kwami 543:kwami 256:Bible 247:Bible 203:Bible 1734:talk 1702:talk 1671:talk 1648:T@lk 1613:talk 1598:T@lk 1578:talk 1560:T@lk 1543:talk 1521:T@lk 1485:talk 1435:T@lk 1415:here 1372:talk 1348:T@lk 1308:talk 1294:talk 1290:Mbz1 1280:talk 1266:talk 1215:talk 1186:talk 1161:talk 1125:none 1113:talk 1015:talk 996:only 920:talk 897:talk 870:talk 852:talk 848:Lisa 818:talk 808:and 788:talk 784:Lisa 773:talk 718:talk 676:talk 672:Lisa 642:talk 613:Talk 587:talk 565:Talk 547:talk 424:was 120:and 118:good 1800:RfC 1770:to 1643:JFW 1593:JFW 1555:JFW 1516:JFW 1430:JFW 1419:any 1343:JFW 1135:or 1088:c) 1081:b) 1074:a) 761:to 611:| 563:| 526:The 380:Low 275:Mid 150:??? 122:1.0 1858:: 1813:. 1808:}} 1804:{{ 1736:) 1704:) 1694:do 1673:) 1645:| 1615:) 1595:| 1580:) 1557:| 1545:) 1518:| 1511:) 1487:) 1432:| 1374:) 1345:| 1310:) 1296:) 1282:) 1268:) 1217:) 1188:) 1163:) 1115:) 1017:) 980:is 922:) 899:) 872:) 858:) 854:- 842:, 838:, 820:) 794:) 790:- 775:) 720:) 682:) 678:- 644:) 589:) 549:) 541:— 460:, 456:, 62:: 1845:) 1841:( 1828:. 1821:. 1732:( 1700:( 1669:( 1611:( 1576:( 1541:( 1509:← 1507:( 1483:( 1370:( 1306:( 1292:( 1278:( 1264:( 1213:( 1184:( 1159:( 1111:( 1013:( 918:( 895:( 868:( 850:( 816:( 786:( 771:( 716:( 674:( 640:( 585:( 545:( 462:3 458:2 454:1 428:. 392:. 287:. 182:. 158:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index