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-dvarĂŽm', 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. â
1180:
an oft-repeated reading of Exodus is that it's the Ten
Commandmentsâand 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. â
440:
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. 23:10â27.
165:
228:
77:
87:
53:
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?
323:
302:
333:
22:
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. â
411:
748:, we are in another edit war. The phrase ע׊רת ×××ר×× 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.)
218:
197:
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-dvarĂŽm" 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 YHWHânot, like v.27, that Mosesâwill write on the tablets, and that without the intrusion of vv. 10â27 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:â..tradional viewâ- Is this part of the same tradition that sees these texts as being dictated to Moses? If so, letâs 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. â
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-dvarĂŽm" 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-dvarĂŽm" 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. â
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". â
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.
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 ××× ××ק×× ×××××ר ×ת××¨× / 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 beenâin emulation of Johannes Wolfgang Goethe,
173:
63:
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
421:
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.
1799:
1795:
1781:
1866:
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
149:
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. â
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:
113:
1896:
389:
379:
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"? â
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? â
1881:
1871:
284:
274:
121:
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. â
1886:
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.
178:
1861:
355:
1891:
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.
982:
the term, whose reference scholars have debated. The phrase "Ten Commandments" in its biblical context translates only one thing,
965:- which is commonly translated as "Ten Words" or "Ten Commandments" - clarifies. Our goal here is clarity for the common reader.
250:
117:
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. â
1876:
461:
457:
453:
522:
Zwei wichtige bisher unerĂśrterte biblische Fragen, zum ersten Mal grĂźndlich beantwortet von einem Landgeistlichen in Schwaben
125:
101:
58:
346:
307:
1842:
1733:
33:
905:
Your time settings are different, but in any event, for reversion purposes a "day" is any 24-hour period, as you know.
1102:
Because the lede refers to all these different things, it must be careful to be explicit about which meaning is meant.
241:
202:
1767:
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"
855:
791:
679:
417:
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. â
470:
537:
Covenant, the Ten Words" means the ritual decalogue of 23:10ff., whose constituent elements are identified p.
1833:
1759:
1727:
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:
805:
712:
Huh? How can an opinion be "untrue"? And why would any source address the outline of a Knowledge article? â
612:
564:
1817:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1805:
1701:
1577:
1542:
1508:
1484:
1371:
1307:
1279:
1214:
1185:
1160:
1112:
1014:
919:
896:
869:
817:
809:
772:
717:
641:
546:
500:
39:
1758:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1260:
Jayjd, please review "This is not a forum". What specific changes, based on sources, do you propuse?
763:
670:
Untrue. Though if you can find a reliable source that backs you up, you can mention that opinion. -
1666:
1608:
1261:
1127:
of them "Ten Commandments", specifically to avoid ambiguity. Instead, in the lede we call a) and b)
582:
410:
21:
1670:
1612:
1265:
586:
249:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1646:
1638:
1596:
1558:
1519:
1433:
1346:
476:
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:
608:
560:
1002:
doesn't "clarify for the common reader" who only knows the phrase in its English translation.
1751:
1697:
1573:
1538:
1480:
1475:
And then it will only support the traditional POV, since our sources disagree on this point.
1367:
1303:
1275:
1210:
1181:
1156:
1108:
1010:
915:
892:
865:
813:
768:
758:
713:
637:
542:
472:
439:
1825:
990:. That is uncontroversial. It you think there is some controversy, pls provide a reference.
1630:
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?
92:
1784:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1634:
1293:
851:
787:
782:
Kwami, that's three reverts so far today. Are you sure you know what you're doing? -
675:
338:
1824:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1855:
1642:
1592:
1554:
1515:
1429:
1342:
1196:
1043:
article, we'd also have to disambiguate them in some way; it turns out that writing
744:
As part of the ongoing attempt to purge the lede of the phrase "Ten Commandments",
233:
1768:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090527163818/http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344
164:
1791:
528:
Ritual Decalogue" and to apply the term to the covenant of Exod. 34:10â27. But
86:
1790:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1232:
1200:
1171:
1144:
1049:
966:
929:
906:
883:
328:
223:
82:
878:
Once on April 2 and twice on April 3. And, of course, the original revert on
1414:
1358:
1289:
847:
783:
671:
493:
Ah, I can splice a bit more of it together from a quotation in Smith (1997)
474:
76:
52:
1771:
1107:
That, of course, makes no sense, but neither does the original argument. â
322:
301:
1847:
1737:
1705:
1674:
1651:
1616:
1601:
1581:
1563:
1546:
1524:
1488:
1438:
1375:
1351:
1311:
1297:
1283:
1269:
1235:
1218:
1203:
1189:
1174:
1164:
1147:
1116:
1052:
1018:
969:
932:
923:
909:
900:
886:
873:
859:
821:
795:
776:
721:
683:
645:
615:
590:
567:
550:
112:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
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. â
108:
351:
1032:
c) "Ten Commandments" meaning a two-word Hebrew phrase in Exodus 34:28
961:
meaning of the term! Explaining that the Pentateuch uses the phrase
1040:
998:
familiar translation) is "the ten commandments". Using the Hebrew
246:
1696:
see Ex34:28 as part of the same narrative as the rest of Ex34. â
1569:
Changing English to Hebrew, and making the phrase TCs lower case.
1035:
d) (according to you) "Ten Commandments" meaning Exodus 34:11-26.
1716:
The last paragraph of the Academic Interpretation section reads
1626:
1405:
the 19th century. The phrase "Ten Commandments" (with capitals)
1129:
the "Ethical" Decalogue of Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21
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:
433:
405:
217:
196:
15:
746:
which is the reason the the RD is notable in the first place
163:
812:. What they have to do with this article I don't know.) â
1762:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
245:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1755:
1224:
978:
No, it's not a "fourth meaning of the term", it simply
879:
843:
839:
835:
752:
749:
1071:
here precisely because we need to disambiguate between
350:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
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
1029:b) "Ten Commandments" meaning Deuteronomy 5:6â21
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.
8:
1026:a) "Ten Commandments" meaning Exodus 20:2â17
757:Unless, of course, you are willing to move
1750:I have just modified one external link on
296:
191:
47:
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
298:
193:
49:
19:
1302:How is it clearer, it your opinion? â
7:
1867:Unknown-importance Religion articles
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
38:It is of interest to the following
524:, dated Feb. 6, 1773âto speak of "
14:
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. â
1155:how we translate it as well. â
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
1067:... we're using an English
259:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible
1913:
1887:WikiProject Bible articles
1811:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1747:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1665:might find it irritating.
1085:meaning Deuteronomy 5:6â21
551:01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
530:the whole of Exod 34:10â27
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 20:2â17
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-dvarĂŽm
1347:
1197:policy violating
1141:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1097:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1090:Aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1083:Aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1076:Aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1045:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
1000:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
988:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
984:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
963:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
954:Aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
764:aseret ha-dvarĂŽm
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:
267:
266:
263:
260:
257:
236:
231:
230:
229:
220:
213:
212:
207:
199:
192:
142:
141:
138:
135:
132:
126:wikiproject page
95:
90:
89:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
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:
1908:
1900:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1854:
1853:
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 hmĹĄpášym
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:Lowâimportance
305:
293:
292:
289:
288:
281:Mid-importance
277:
271:
270:
268:
265:Bible articles
251:the discussion
238:
237:
221:
209:
208:
206:Midâimportance
200:
188:
187:
184:
183:
170:
160:
159:
152:
146:
145:
143:
97:
96:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
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:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1722:
1717:
1711:
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:
739:
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:
485:
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:
286:
282:
276:
273:
272:
269:
252:
248:
244:
243:
235:
224:
222:
219:
215:
214:
210:
204:
201:
198:
194:
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:
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.â
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:YÄĹĄĂťÄâ
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:â
460:,
456:,
62::
1845:)
1841:(
1828:.
1821:.
1732:(
1700:(
1669:(
1611:(
1576:(
1541:(
1509:â
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.