Jump to content

Talk:Book of Deuteronomy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 40: Line 40:


On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. --[[Special:Contributions/67.247.20.71|67.247.20.71]] ([[User talk:67.247.20.71|talk]]) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. --[[Special:Contributions/67.247.20.71|67.247.20.71]] ([[User talk:67.247.20.71|talk]]) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

::Indeed. The Book of Deuteronomy itself references stones upon which it would have first been written down, displayed on a hilltop. It mentions blessings and curses to be spoken aloud by those hearing Moses's statements. This article solely posits the view that the whole thing is made up, and was created by ruling elites at a much later date to serve their purposes. This is the prejudicial, even bigoted perspective of militant atheists. There is no proof that the book is a falsehood. That it may have been written down or revisions made later does not preclude the possibility that it was passed down through the generations, whether orally or in writing, before the earliest manuscripts that are available to modern "scholars". The article is highly prejudicial and biased, and other articles on books of the Bible follow the same agenda.

Revision as of 21:18, 30 August 2013

Deuteronomy 22:29 for real?

I found a part of Deuteronomy in the net, the english version is like this:

'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

but the portuguese version is diferent, and don't use the word rapist or rape, but is ambiguous enough. Any thoughts? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.241.255.250 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 2 October 2007

This Wikipedia talk-page is only for discussing ways to improve this article. -- -- -- 21:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RomanHistorian

I was forced to revert your recent change, as you gave no explanation or citations, and made no attempt to get consensus despite the controversial nature of your proposed change. This is your chance to explain and defend your view, but if you edit-war, I will report you and have you blocked from further editing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These changes are too minor to fight over. I changed 1 word. I think it should be the way I had it, otherwise this is too minor and I'm not going to fight this one anymore.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly torah portions

I moved this from Contents (meaning the contents of the book) because it doesn't describe or summarise the contents of Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, the weekly torah portions are very important in Judaism, so I've moved it down to the Judaism section and given it a new subsection, under Shema. It needs some explanation - what are the portions, and why are they important in Judaism. PiCo (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern scholars"

"modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria"

Saying that "modern scholars" believe something, is like saying "however top scientists now believe that this technique is no longer feasible."

On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. --67.247.20.71 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Book of Deuteronomy itself references stones upon which it would have first been written down, displayed on a hilltop. It mentions blessings and curses to be spoken aloud by those hearing Moses's statements. This article solely posits the view that the whole thing is made up, and was created by ruling elites at a much later date to serve their purposes. This is the prejudicial, even bigoted perspective of militant atheists. There is no proof that the book is a falsehood. That it may have been written down or revisions made later does not preclude the possibility that it was passed down through the generations, whether orally or in writing, before the earliest manuscripts that are available to modern "scholars". The article is highly prejudicial and biased, and other articles on books of the Bible follow the same agenda.