Talk:Sabbath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sabbath is part of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do: edit  Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Archives
February 2006 – February 2006

• /Archive 1: Older than February 2006.

Contents 1 Archived old talk page 2 SDA POV 3 Jewish naming of festivals 3.1 Wow, what Hebrew do you speak 4 This page and Seventh day Christian groups 5 Mexican minority sect? 6 Removal of external links 7 Biblical references to the Sabbath Day 8 Biblical references 9 Claim of misleading sentence 10 Unfair Removal 11 Arguments for Sabbatarianism

[edit] Archived old talk page

I've gone ahead and archived the talk page which was largely outdated discussion and overly bloated as is. Vincent Valentine 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SDA POV

what does sda and cog mean?

We really need to rein in the sda's on any article to do with the sabbath or sunday or anything related to it. The article just becomes an apologetic for sda teachings and all to often a chance for some catholic bashing. How about we find someone who isn't sda to write it?

I'm not SDA and I wrote a good deal of it. I'll admit many SDAs and COG have been coming to inject their doctrines as incorrigible truth but I've tried to keep the article relatively NPOV. Can you point out specific issues with any parts of it? I'd be glad to help revise sections you find to be POV. Vincent Valentine 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section needs to be revised:

[The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the early Church met on Sunday according to its own authority, and not on the basis of any Scriptural mandate to do so. Although of no official standing, the Keenan's Doctrinal Catechism, a Catholic Catechism, declares that there is no scriptural basis for first day observance: "Q; Have you any other way of proving that the [Roman] Church has power to institute festivals? A: Had she not such power she could not have instituted one in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day of the week. A change for which there is no Scriptural authority"

Other Roman Catholic sources can be cited, to show that according to the Catholic Church, there is no scriptural basis for neglecting Saturday observance: "Nowhere in the bible do we find that Jesus or the apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is, the seventh day of the week, Saturday. Today, most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman] church outside the bible." (Catholic Virginian, Oct. 3, 1947)]

Sda's have a nasty habit of using obscure quotes. Why not use the official catechism of the catholic church instead of an old out of date one? You don't have to go to the Catholic Virginian which is merely a diocesan newspaper. The sda's want it to appear that catholicism is cavalier when it comes to scripture. Here is what the offical catechism says:

[ The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."[104] Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,[105] it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday: We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.[106] Sunday- fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:[107] Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.[108] 2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."[109] Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."[110]

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.[112] The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another."[113] Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer.... Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.... We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."[114]]

You can also use the cited footnotes. I think this is much more accurate then the unofficial resources quoted in the article.

There are some other very official quotes that are quoted stating that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. I will be happy to share them with you or you can see many of them for yourselves at Light Ministries. Most Catholics that I know are proud of the fact that the man that they follow (the Pope) has the power to change the day of worship. If you believe that the Pope is the Vicar or substitute of Jesus Christ, then you must believe that he has the power to do this. So whether the quote is from an obscure but valid source such as the Catholic Virginian or else from more recent, less obscure, and official sources such as The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine or Canon and Tradition or Catechism Made Easy or The Catholic Encyclopedia, which all state that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, it matters not. The Catholic church is not shy about admitting to making this change, and since it is NOT shy, why should you be upset about the fact that they did?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist. Studied in Rome and uses that as a bid for legitimacy. He is certainly biased.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi is an Italo-American scholar who has studied and lived in several countries. He was born and brought up in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the Vatican wall. For his college education he went to England where he earned a B. A. degree in Theology at Newbold College. From England he came to America for his graduate studies and earned a M. A. and a B. D. degrees at Andrews University Theological Seminary. Upon completing his seminary training in 1964, he went with his wife, Anna, to Ethiopia where he served for five years as Bible and History teacher.

In 1969 Dr. Bacchiocchi returned to his native city of Rome to study at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, where he was the first non-Catholic to be admitted in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of summa cum laude for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday.

After completing his doctorate in 1974, Dr. Bacchiocchi was invited to teach in the Religion Department of Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He has served at Andrews for 26 years as Professor of Theology and Church History until his retirement on July 2000.

Dr. Bacchiocchi is more than qualified to make legitimate, intelligent, and well-researched contributions. What makes you think that he is a biased apologist?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I notice COGwriter has made contributions. He is a member of an Armstrong offshoot group. A rather small sectarian movement. Like sda's they are very biased and their scholarship is...interesting for lack of a better word. They have their blinders on.

Thank GOD someone finally agrees with me. I kept saying that but we'd just get in revert wars and it was going nowhere. I completely agree, the obscure SDA quote thing is 100% accurate, this is a common method, kinda like quoting a single scientist who says "evolution is bunk" when you have a million voices screaming the opposite behind him. Let's revise, remove the obscure quotes and add official catechism quotes and footnotes, shall we? I can't get to it tonight but I will try tomorrow.

I'm also aware of COGWriter's additions and his unorthodox sect. I never agreed with any of his work but I didn't have the background to debunk it. I was very cautious of his additions and many of them seemed borderline POV to me. I figured I'd let it slide until someone came along with more knowledge on the subject.

Vincent Valentine 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to help. I did some checking on COG and his degrees are not in theological studies. He is an ex-Catholic. Obviously his pov is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who are not sabbatarians. His denomination is a splinter of a splinter. Of course for them the Pope is the anti-Christ etc. Not exactly mainstream. In the interest of full disclosure I am a Catholic priest with several degrees and am currently studying at a Pontifical University for my Licentiate. I also was a Presbyterian minister in a previous incarnation with a graduate degree from a Protestant seminary as well as my Catholic seminary training. If you need it I can ask some of the finest scripture and patristic scholars in the world to check facts, but I don't think COG or the sda's would like it. I was just looking around and discovered this entry. I wondered if the sda's were trying to stake a claim. It is important that this be as objective as possible. I don't mind having their pov recognized, but they can't be allowed to falsify the other pov. Thanks for helping to keep this entry accurate.

I chagned the section you mentioned. Let me know if it's any better now, I did try to keep it NPOV and in line with the Catechism. I'd be glad to rewrite/revise/reconsider any parts.

I've kept a personal eye on this article since I figured it would be a hotbed for sectarian activity since many new Christianity splinter cells are based entirely on Sabbatarianism and most older churches have considered the issue long since settled and likely wouldn't even think to visit let alone edit an article on Sabbath observance. To them, I conjectured, it would seem as silly as putting contemporary Christian arguments in a kosher eating section. As I thought this article has, at various times, become an intense battleground between smaller splinter sect representatives and ... well, me. I can attest that Godwin's law is 100% accurate. :-P

Hopefully my newest edits are helpful. Vincent Valentine 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to bad. It makes things clearer. Also it omits the unofficial texts for something that is endorsed by the Church. Maybe you could refer them to paragraph 2174ff, so they can refer to the whole section of the catechism on the sabbath if they are interested. You are correct this is a battleground. Some of these groups have staked their souls on it and view Catholicism as the archenemy. They tie the two issues together. Ah, the stories I could tell. But I think this is much improved. Be aware that the Lewis book they mention is a 1903 work of uncertain reputation. SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own. I actually caught them using the elipse to omit part of a quote and made the quote say the opposite of what the author intended. When I pointed it out they shrugged and refused to correct it. If I think of anything else that might be useful I will let you know. Btw, the is the first time I have really made a contribution to wikipedia, hooray.

I made the change as to what I think you meant, if I messed up please feel free to fix it (I'll be honest -- I've never quoted an official catechism before :-P). Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Christianity splinter cells," "His denomination is a splinter of a splinter," "Not exactly mainstream." Careful, Christianity itself started as a small (acts 1:15) sect known by the Jews as "The Way" (Acts 24:14,22). Christ Himself declares that it is the minority that will find life (Matt 7:13-14; Matt 22:14). "SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own." This is sadly true many times even in my own experience, and I do agree that good sources should be expected. "Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist." As a priest are you not an apologist for your church as well? While you may be loyal to the ex cathedra position of your church, I certainly don't recognize that authority. And while I don't have a clue what this "Lewis" book is, to simply say of "uncertain reputation," doesn't tell me any reason why one way or the other. Without a rationale, and no it doesn't matter how may degrees you have, positions taken up against Sabbatarianism can be just as fickle. I gather by your statements you have had or known negative experiences with Sabbatarians, particularly SDAs; consider that SDAs may have their own stories to tell on the opposite side. Further, a large part of the negative position that various Protestants have with the Catholic system is the knowledge of its past persecution, by way of inquisition, and the concern that as it gains its power back, and I personally believe it inevitably will gain it back, so also will open persection begin afresh. Before running with picking out specific groups for labeling Catholicism as anti-Christ, consider that it doesn't take much to find that Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers said as much as well. Don't think that I hate Catholics, there are many at my place of work and I love them all. As to why some Sabbatarians resort to old sources, this is due to the observation that over the last ~200 years there has been a shift in mainstream Protestantism from opposition to Catholicism to embracing it; a stellar example would be the presence of the US President at the funeral of the late John Paul II; simply, they don't trust modern scholarship because they believe it has turned a blind eye to the past and contains a bias in the present. Wintermancer 07:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We are just saying their groups are splinters and don't represent mainstream thought. These splinter groups tend to be illogical and fanatical, and positively hostile toward anyone who disagrees with them. Trust me, I've been called many nasty names on this talk page alone when just asking for fact-checking and reliable sources.

I'm simply saying that we need to watch out for them to insidiously infect the article with their POV throughout its contents. I'm not saying their POV should be ignored or that they are vandalizing lunatics just because they are part of a small sect. All I'm saying is that if someone is a convicted pedophile, you wouldn't put them in charge of a daycare. This has nothing to do with us trying to exclude others or force our POV on the article, it is simply us trying to maintain neutrality in this article which easily becomes a battleground between various warring sects. Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vincent, maybe you should simply post all the catechism paragraphs I cited above. Together they explain why Catholicism rejects the sabbatarian position. And it does so in a nonpolemical way. I don't see how anyone could object.

Wintermancer, I suppose I could refer you to the Protestant inquisitions. Ask the Catholic Irish how they were treated. Perhaps read about the English martyrs. Maybe the last 200 years has been good for all of us. It is nice the President would go to the Popes funeral. I suppose I am an apologist, but a relatively benign one. You on the other hand accuse us of nefariously planning to kill you and all your Protestant brethren. Please share with us the evidence of this coming Catholic persecution. You simply prove my point by such absurd statements. Yes, I have had bad experiences with sda's. I don't care for bigots of any stripe. Especially I don't like it when they misrepresent or even lie about my beliefs. Truthfulness should transcend ones individual bias. My desire here was to ensure that our reasons for worshipping on the Lord's Day were accurately stated. The catechism does that well and it avoids the typical strawman approach favored by anti-Catholics.

I considered posting the whole catechism section but I was concerned about going off-track and adding to article bloat (which I'm afriad this article already suffers). Feel free to revise my edits if you like, you're certainly more qualified to talk about the Catholic position on the Sabbath than I am. Vincent Valentine 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the change and just put in the sections of the catechism. I figured that it would speak for itself without commentary. At the very least it says what we really believe. Hopefully this is adequate.

It's a shame that you took out legitimate sources, of which I can name a hundred more, and only put in part of the Catholic Catechism. Just because a source is old or local doesn't mean that it is not a valid source. The Catechism itself states that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia. If the Catholic church is proud of this fact, why are you so loathe to allow any sources be cited to this affect on this page? Are you ashamed of what your church is not? --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish naming of festivals

Some of the Hebrew names used in this article, have no source in the Hebrew Bible, however, come from the Rabbis. Why are they even in this article? ems 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, what Hebrew do you speak

You got some weird translation of Simchat Torah. its defently not the Hebrew the whole world accepts as Hebrew. ems 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding factual templated, or anything else that might be more fitting. ems 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You should only tag the section you have an issue with, not the whole article. Or, hey, fix it yourself. Don't just haphazardly toss tags around. Most of the article is well-sourced and it's very annoying to have someone barge in and toss factual accuracy tags around. I agree the Hebrew part is probably bunk, that was added by a fringe sect member who claimed to be an authority -- I don't know any Hebrew so I took his word for it. Take it out if you have evidence that it's no good. Vincent Valentine 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, I added it to the section that had the error, the intro. ems 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no? You used the "whole article" tag and put it at the very top of the article, flagging the entire article as needing factual reinforcement. You can use the section tag on sections you find to be factually lacking, but I'm curious -- what specifically are you referring to? The "Simchat Torah" simply is referring to the Eight Day of the Feast. The sentence after that "the Hebrew word refers to.." is talking about what the word "Shabbat" means. I don't see any problems here except maybe you think the "Simchat Torah" is what is being defined as "day of rest" which I agree is wrong. If you want to clarify that part go ahead. Vincent Valentine 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Simchat Torah means 'rejoucing of the Torah'. It isn't even the Eighth day of the featival, its the last day, which in Israel is the Seventh day. ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all Hebrew translations, because:

1. Half of them were wrong.
2. They all link to the Jewish version of the holiday, which is confusion, as the Christian holiday can be something totally different.
3. Half of them were wrong. Oh wait, I said this one already. :P

ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

-Obscure quotes-

I find it interesting that those who are bothered by "obscure quotes", from the various Catholic sources, want it replaced with something updated. The updated quote from the Cathechism (above), does absolutely nothing to change what is found in the obscure, and outdated quotes. Still, not one Biblical authorative reason is found in their updated version. The only real difference is the obscure quotes boldly announce they are basing Sunday keeping upon church authority and not the Bible. It's no wonder why Sunday advocates want such texts removed and replaced with something that doesn't make their ears itch.

Just my 2cents.

[edit] This page and Seventh day Christian groups

The list of Saturday keeping groups here seems to be more expansive than the one at Seventh day Christian groups should that page simply redirect here? MyNameIsNotBob 09:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Many seventh-day keepers see the Sabbath as an object of personal pride and sect identification. Because of its status and supposed uniqueness, many sect members have been more than willing to identify their churches on this list. At times we've had to pare it down as it was beginning to get bloated with miniscule churches in remote areas with total memberships of less than two dozen. As for your concern, I think the "Seventh day Christian Groups" should link here, not the other way around. I see virtually no purpose in having an obscure article title like that -- I don't find it notable. Linking here would be fine, though. Vincent Valentine 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Seventh day Christian groups now redirects here. MyNameIsNotBob 09:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks really good, thanks. I think this was a positive change. Vincent Valentine 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican minority sect?

Is the Soldiers of the cross link in violation of WP:NN?Dominick ^(TALK) 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NN is not actually a wikipedia policy, it is not even a guideline, it is just an essay about what is generally thought about the topic by wikipedians. Furthermore, the essay is about articles, however, if there are too many links, it is a good guideline about what to keep and what not to keep. Ansell 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK is a mexican sect notable enough,considering they are such a small group? Dominick ^(TALK) 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed. It was non-notable and added nothing worthwhile to the article. And was entirely in Spanish. Functionally equivalent to linkspam. Vincent Valentine 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Soldiers of the Cross Church is not a Mexican sect. Although small, it is an international religious organization with headquarters in the United States. See their Atlanta, GA Spanish/English website [1], or their Dallas, TX site [2]

The Mexican site functions as their web portal and mentions over 20 countries in which the organization operates. One of the group's core beliefs is Sabbath keeping, and it seems perfectly appropriate to include them in a list of Sabbath-keeping churches. Excluding them seems arbitrary and overly dependent on a particular POV about what counts as a significant or important religious movement.

That's fine. Before someone had just dumped a link to a remote church with some .com.mx address (the site was entirely in Spanish) which is totally inappropriate for the English Wikipedia article on the Sabbath. Plus you should note we're very accustomed to linkspam on this page. Vincent Valentine 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of external links

Has anyone else been noticing how anonymous contributors have slowly removed all the anti-Sabbath external links? Vincent Valentine 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the people who have removed the superfluous external links can be considered "anonymous" as they each have usernames logged in the edit history ... --Vamp:Willow 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't imagine that VampWillow and I would be considered anonymous. You should probably check our User pages first. As for removing the links, we were clearing the way so as to replace them with links to Wikisource, a Wikimedia Foundation project. In my view at least, that is far better than maintaining 196 external links to a decidedly POV website. Danny 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need so many external links in this article. This is supposed to be an article about the Sabbath as a Christian concept, not a linkfarm. And I'd hardly call Danny Wool "anonymous". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy. I wasn't referring to Danny, see when I posted that it was before his "contributions." We used to have it nice and separated, with "Anti-Sabbath" and "Pro-Sabbath" sites. Yea, a lot of it was linkspam but after many revisions I thought it ended up quite nice. Then you barge in, don't bother posting to the talk page, delete all the nice Bibleverse links we so carefully constructed and dump half the links. The churches keeping a Sabbath/no Sabbath I thought was informative at the least. I mean that information seems relevant to the article. So rather than get offended by my revert let's talk about the reasons you've decided to dice up most of the references/links in the article. The only ones I particularly care about are the Catholic Catechism links (which were useful and well-placed I thought) and the church links. The rest I could care less about. I'm not sure a separate "List" page is warranted on account of notability, but the information certainly seems relevant to an article. Vincent Valentine 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah - date noted; our mistake. This page has one of the highest counts of links leading outside Wikipedia and the sister projects and leading users away is not of benefit to us; as such where verses need to be quoted they should be from one of our projects (in this case, Wikisource). The links to lists of churches, again, offers nothing of *encyclopedic* value. --Vamp:Willow 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)`

How does the list add nothing of encyclopedic value? I mean, if nothing else it seems like it is an obvious thing to have, even if only keeping the main churches (ie, SDA, Seventh Day Baptists, etc.) listed. I agree the fringe churches can go, I've tried to keep those trimmed off as much as possible. I could be seeing this from the wrong light, I just think it's a useful tool in understanding where the concept takes shape. I would reference other articles that do the same, but just because someone else does it doesn't make it right :) Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical references to the Sabbath Day

Is there something wrong with using the {{bibleverse}} template for this section? The last reversion removes all of the templates... I don't see any possible reason for not having the links. Ansell 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing links to external projects because it will divert traffic is not a valid reason. Reverting because of that. Ansell 11:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NOT. rv'd There appears to have been an edit overwrite/conflict earlier as I did not see your comment previously, nor delete it. --Vamp:Willow 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out what part of WP:NOT tells people to avoid using the bibleverse template to reference bible verses? Ansell 11:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think our goal should be to link internally, in this case to Wikisource, when possible. There is no need for us to augment traffic to other websites, when we can direct it to our own. Danny 11:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So deleting the templates does that how? It just removes easy access to the references. Its like removing a website link and saying, copy and paste this in. If wikisource has modern versions of the bible, and as many as available through {{bibleverse}} then why haven't the links been translated, not simply removed as they were. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files number 1. This isn't about the *Template*, per se, but about the fact that at the present time that template inserts external links. --Vamp:Willow 11:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not giving a "list" or repository of links. That part of policy is meant for putting in multiple links that are not valid as references, why not discuss this on the bibleverse talk page instead of removing the links here. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An *external* link to the text of the verse concerned can hardly be callsed a useful "reference" though. The target page has commercial elements on it too; indeed the text being referred to forms only a small part of that page. WP is not a link-farm --Vamp:Willow 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So an external link that has advertising is not classed as a reference? The text is the part of the page that is being referenced. As I said before, dont remove the way wikipedia "could" link to the verses, get the place they link to changed. Please keep the variety that is currently available with bibleverse though.Ansell 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, biblegateway.com doesn't have any commercial banners on it. It has one reference to a commercial company on it, in reference to keeping the website in business. It is a related company at that, a bible seller. Ansell 12:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem witht he {{bibleverse}} template, take it up on the Template talk:bibleverse page or WP:AfD. MyNameIsNotBob 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NotBob, did you mean WP:TfD??? Ansell 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this discussion because I have Essjay's page on my watchlist for reasons I've forgotten now. It seems to me that the {{bibleverse}} template should stay until there is a Wiki source for the same content. I think it is useful and consistent with guidelines and policies on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's keep the bibleverse tags in. Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep bibleverse until there is a useful internal alternative, NIV at the minimum, KJV is out of date and used by few Christians today.209.78.19.253 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many churches still use the KJV because it can be more accurate in most cases compared to others such as NIV... Some of these bibles like the NIV or the ASV, in fact most new translations take whole verses out and in a couple of cases whole chapters out of the bible.... KJV scriptures should be kept in my opinion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexme (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 May 2006.

Could you point to some references for your claims? Such as for the many churches claim, and to some notable removals of verses in some new translations? Ansell 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are missing verses and changed language for sure, but this is because the documentary evidence nowadays shows the occasional ancient copyist would embellish with his own ideas. The older documents we have that are much more reliable went into the NIV, whereas the KJV was based on more recent and less sound documentation. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vers1.htm for a comparison. The NIV should be used when possible. Vincent Valentine 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions: Mark 16, Western Acts, Pericope_Adulteræ, Comma_Johanneum, Additions to Luke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.20.61 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 May 2006.

With the exception of Western Acts, I believe that the other cases are included in the NIV but noted as objectively as possible to describe their history. The "Additions to Luke" are also as objective as possible given the total supply that was used to compile the NIV compared to the KJV. I believe that something compiled using more sources is much more likely to be closer to the truth. Hence I also recommend that the NIV be the standard version to use. KJV is not acceptable as the only possibility in a new system given that we have so many now to choose from. Ansell 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another page listing 40 missing or changed verses is http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

Main important verses missing in the NIV: Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (ALL 12 verses MISSING!!!)... Why are these 12 verses missing... Maybe the translators didn't like them, who knows?

John 5:4 "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." COMPLETELY removed. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?

Romans 16:24 - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." Sounds like a good verse why is it missing?

In the NIV I John 5:7 says,

NIV "For there are three that testify:"

Instead of KJV "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This verse listed in the KJV affirms the whole belief of the TRINITY where is it in the NIV? Do they not like the TRINITY? Well I know what Bible I will be using...

--Alexme 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are more personally comfortable with a particular point of view says nothing of that point of view's accuracy. It is unfortunate that the documentary evidence does not support your preferred beliefs and preconceived notions, but comfort is not a reason to ignore a conclusion reached by the weight of available evidence. The NIV is the edition we ought to use. The links right now point to the NKJV, I will try to fix that later. Vincent Valentine 13:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about comfort it's what I think God would prefer the whole Bible... not just parts of it... God's word says we shouldn't add or take from the Bible, the NIV Bible had done that.. If you choose to use the NIV because of the clarity of it's that's fine, no more arguments from me. --Alexme 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read the NIV actually reverts additions to the bible that happened in the few centuries after Christs death. It goes back to the earliest known sources to determine this, sources which were not available to the KJV scholars. I am sure the KJV was the best interpretation that was available at the time, but we know more now. Ansell 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, if not many, Eastern Orthodox would prefer the King James line (new King James preferably) because it follows the "majority text" (aka textus receptus) instead of other translations that aim for antiquity. Similarly, we prefer the Septuagint over either the Masoretic text or the Dead Sea scrolls (note that the New Testament authors also quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew). It's a question of whether or not you trust the ongoing editing community or not. Orthodox would tend to say that the Septuagint and textus receptus have been refined, made to say what was originally intended. What becomes accepted by the whole Church is also important to us, individual texts possibly being aberrant. Roman Catholics would tend to agree, I would think (correct me if I'm wrong). Some Protestants, on the other hand, would see the continual editing as intervening interpretation to be avoided. They try to get back to the original author's intent. Likewise, they would view majority acceptance as irrelevant because they don't trust the editing body. The "correctness" of one translation over another will be colored by your interpretive community.

Of course, there are other reasons to not prefer a certain translation. The NIV, for instance, is either preferred or discarded because of the way in which it was edited. Having so many people working on disparate sets of scriptures makes for either a good common denominator, or a monstrous patchwork of differing theological positions.

No one translation should be used for this page. If representing the Orthodox opinion, supporting verses should be in NKJV. Likewise, a viewpoint dependent on the NIV translation should use NIV verses to support it. Sometimes the difference in POV can be traced (at least partially) to the sources you are using -- such an observation might be valuable content for this page.

BTW, saying that one version "took verses out" or another "put verses in" is merely an appeal to one's own POV. You could similarly say that the first appropriately left out unique inventions and the second preserved an otherwise missing text. Certainly you can't say that the NIV modified the text of the KJV or vice versa, it's simply not true (the former wasn't their MO, the latter isn't possible chronologically).

An appeal for "this or that translation is correct" is usually, IMHO, a masked battle for the correctness of one's theology, ecclesiology, etc... If theology or ecclesiology (or other) is at issue, then let's talk about that and not the intermediate issue of translation. Translation without interpretation is impossible.

(an Eastern Orthdox, who as a Protestant, studied under NIV translators) Epte 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical references

The section "Biblical references to the Sabbath Day" is missing quite a few references such the begining of Genesis were God blessed the Sabbath.--63.42.12.24 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Find the word Sabbath in there. Can't find it? That's because it isn't there. That verse is probably literary prolepsis from Moses btw. Vincent Valentine 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no: Sabbath simply appears as a verb and not a noun in the verses: Vayishbot = And he rested, ki bo shabat mikol melachto = Because on it he rested. Danny 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get all literal, I was tacitly referring to "The Sabbath" as in the day of rest which runs from Friday sunet to Saturday sunset -- which isn't in there. Vincent Valentine 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim of misleading sentence

How is this sentence misleading?:

According to Exodus 31:16-17, the Sabbath is to be a "lasting covenant ... a sign ... forever."

"Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’" (NRSV)

Read again skippy. "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.

Perpetual covenant for the children of Israel (Jews). Leaving that part out is misleading and wrong. This article is about the Sabbath in Christianity, not Judaism. Vincent Valentine 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added "perpetual covenant ... [for] the people of Israel". Also note that this is the Old Testament Sabbath, the Old Testament is part of most forms of Christianity. 64.169.0.163 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair Removal

Hello. I would really like to talk to someone about how to post to this site without getting my postings immediately deleted. I added a large amount of content to this topic and within minutes, it had been deleted, cited for reason of Original Research. My subject matter was not original research, and was well cited, and the person who deleted the information did not even have time to read everything I input before he deleted. I went back in and added back in one paragraph, again citing my sources, and I added a link to the external links. Again, within a couple of hours, someone else deleted my information, and also my link. This time I received a message saying that I was spamming. The link in question is http://www.sabbathtruth.com. It is a webpage full of the history of the Sabbath. It is not spam and has plenty of wonderful information concerning the topic of the page. My paragraph that was deleted stated "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia. I have written and asked what exactly I need to do to get this information posted, but have received no response so far. I certainly want to stay within the Wikipedia guidelines for posting, but I cannot see what I have done wrong. Any help or suggestions in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kimberlie Currier, Ph.D.

[edit] Arguments for Sabbatarianism

Call me crazy, but shouldn't " arguments for Sabbatarianism" go in the Sabbatarianism page? Epte 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)