Talk:Sabbath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pseudo-disambiguation[edit]

This article was written in WP:SUMMARY style to serve as a pseudo-disambiguation page, i.e., a brief description of various loosely related but very distinct practices and beliefs. As such, it should remain very detached and noncontroversial, and any very specific content should be placed in one of the articles summarized, rather than this article. (The edit I just tightened came close to such a concern, but did not overtly merit a move to a subarticle.) In theory, each summary should be limited to one paragraph. I would appreciate help from other editors in keeping this page free of undue weight. Thanks in advance! JJB 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this was discussed on an earlier version of the page, now moved to Sabbath in Christianity when this was made a disambiguation page. See here. I support this change, as I argued earlier. But we must not ignore the earlier discussion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the biblical Sabbath is a specific period of time associated with any specific earthly frame of reference. In modern parlance, the Sabbath is specifically that period of time between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday for any specific earthly reference point. Leviticus 23:32 states that the Sabbath is celebrated from "even to even" ... meaning evening to evening. So biblically, one day ends and another day begins at sunset (not at midnight like the world presently does with its days). So just as a New Yorker can be talking to a friend in California via telephone ... where for the New Yorker its Monday morning but for the Californian its Sunday night ... the same kind of thing holds for the biblical Sabbath. The period of time that is the Sabbath depends on one's earthly location. As far as the meaning or purpose of the Sabbath, here there are a number of interesting perspectives. While it certainly is a day of rest, it also has other purposes and meanings. for instance, Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:12,20 identify the Sabbath as a "sign" between God and his people "that gives them knowledge" as to who God actually is. In fact Exodus 31:16 actually identifies the Sabbath as a separate covenant between God and his people, and a perpetual covenant at that, that provides further knowledge in that it identifies him as the Creator to them. Further, an in depth study of the bible suggests that the Sabbath actually provides a broad overview of the plan of salvation. It suggests that the plan is 7000 years long (using the one day is a thousand years principal of 2 Peter 3:8), where the Sabbath pictures the last thousand years, commonly referred to as the millennium (the time after Christ returns ... its the 1000 year rule of Christ (Revelation 11:15)). And when God speaks of his feasts in Leviticus 23, the first one delineated is the weekly Sabbath. And in depth study further suggests that the annual festivals that follow actually provide further and specific definition of the plan of salvation contained within the weekly cycle and the Sabbath. For instance the annual Sabbaths picture epochs in the plan. And when a specific event is pictured by an annual Sabbath or festival one finds that the event actually happens on that specific annual Sabbath or festival. So far there has been two striking examples of this. The first one is Passover. Jesus is the true Passover Lamb. And he wasn't killed on just any day of the year ... but on Passover day itself. The second example is Pentecost (also called the feast of weeks and the feast of firstfruits). Among other things, Pentecost pictures the pouring of God's Holy Spirit and the establishment of the New Testament Church. This event, when it happened, didn't happen on just any day of the year, it happened on Pentecost (Acts 2:1). The next event in the plan is the Return of Christ ... pictured by the Feast of Trumpets. Christ returns at the last (or seventh) trumpet (Revelation 11:15). It would certainly be interesting if it turns out that in the year when it actually occurs if it turns out to be on the Feast of Trumpets itself. That remains to be seen. But the first two occurrences (Passover and Pentecost) are a matter of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.151.224 (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)



Definition[edit]

What is the definition of Sabbath? I was under the impression that it mean something like "day of rest".

Oxford dictionary defines it as "(often the Sabbath) a day of religious observance and abstinence from work, kept by Jews from Friday evening to Saturday evening, and by most Christians on Sunday." poppy rocks did you no American heritage dictionary defines it as "1. The seventh day of the week, Saturday, observed as the day of rest and worship by the Jews and some Christian sects. 2. The first day of the week, Sunday, observed as the day of rest and worship by most Christians."

Under both these definitions, "Sabbath#Islam" doesn't fit because Islam has no specific day of rest. Both of these dictionaries are from the twenty first century.

However, some dictionaries call Friday as the "Muslim Sabbath".[1]

Thoughts?Bless sins (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're better off looking at meanings of the original Hebrew word שבת (Shabbat or Shabbos depending on dialect) which the English form Sabbath is derived from. There's a pretty good discussion of the etymology of the Hebrew term on the Shabbat page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat#Etymology. DanielC/T+ 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The challenge of this page is that there is no "the definition of Sabbath" in English usage. There may well be a "the definition" or even a "the Biblical definition" but that is not WP's scope; we're only to list all notable POVs about what "the definition" is (see WP:V). Commentary advocating any particular definition would be better at the various broken-out articles (see WP:SUMMARY). JJB 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I found this Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 20: V. 20 By James Hastings Contributor John A. Selbie Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003 ISBN 0766136981, 9780766136984 and mentions the probable original of the Hebrew Sabbath stems from the meaning Heart Rest or Mid Rest by the Sumerians;--Pnb73 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC) sabbath is a rest-day initiated by God messiahhealingsabbathchurch jesmion 41.220.69.100 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Dbachmann edits[edit]

I reverted these edits and one to Sabbath (disambiguation), though they appear well-intentioned, because they did not take into account the article's structure of pseudo-disambiguation as described in the first paragraph of talk above. First, deleting somewhat related practices in Buddhism, Islam, and Unification has no precedent, and those practices are certainly considered "Sabbaths" by significant people-groups (not just general holidays), regardless of their arguably weaker lineage. (If you want to cut one, actually, I think "esbat" is the weakliest-related, but there is no strong reason not to include it here, so I give the benefit of doubt.) Second, the other organizational changes proposed did not result in any appreciable improvement to the outline I had introduced several months ago, and had outlining flaws which are too obvious IMHO to dwell upon. Third, there was no introduction on this talk page to the proposed split, as would be ordinarily proper.

But most important, this page has been a stable solution to all sorts of proposed splits and moves for some time now. The "citations needed" added by Dbachmann refer to statements which have already long appeared in the subarticles linked. (The Boer version is fully reference-cited; the Peru version is not, so "cn" would be appropriate in that article (new moon); not this one, because it is a summary of that article, and if the Peru claim is eventually dropped from that article for lack of citation, it can then be dropped from this one as well.) This is already a form of disambiguation page (in fact, a cross between dab and WP:SUMMARY), but there are so many nuances and twists that a one-line entry for each would not do them justice. And normal dab pages are about heterogeneous items anyway, not homogeneous items such as these, which are all related. (The heterogeneous page already appears properly at Sabbath (disambiguation) and is linked properly here; moving the homogeneous categories to that page was also similarly misintended.) Fact is, people who search "Sabbath" most probably want one or more of the homogeneous meanings; in disambiguating links to "Sabbath", I found many where the context did not specify Jewish, Christian, or other Sabbath (often deliberately), and therefore that link could refer to any or all: and so such a pseudodab page is precisely what such a link should point to. (Time to do that dab search again!) The claim that these topics are unqualifiedly "unrelated" is not a strong prop.

So thanks for the desire to help, but I think you will be happier with the extant solution if you consider it a bit more. Please let me know if there is some concern driving these edits which I did not address. Next time, sweeping changes might be better introduced by a talk proposal first. Thank you! JJB 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

why are you posting this here and not to the disambiguation page talkpage? I have never heard of "pseudo-disambiguation". Per WP:DAB, the only purpose of this page is presenting a structured list of articles on topics that may be referred to as "Sabbath". Also, I see no reference that Jumu'ah is called "Sabbath" by anyone. The translation of uposatha as "Sabbath" is referenced somewhat contortedly in the uposatha article. Sure, "day of rest" may be called "sabbath" in somewhat antiquated English, but it isn't made clear why this point of terminology is so important. Perhaps the scope of this article is really "days of rest in various religions", and could beneficially be moved to "day of rest". Either way, this article isn't exepmt from citing its sources and establishing that its topic is well-defined and not a product of WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The First Sabbath[edit]

The first biblical account of the Sabbath occurs in the 16th chapter of Exodus when the children of Israel collect manna for six days and rest on the seventh day. It is incorrectly believed that the first account of the Sabbath takes place in Genesis, which is Moses' account of The Creation.

After the institution of the Sabbath Day (in the book of Exodus), the children of Israel arrive at Mt. Sinai. Here, at the mountain, Moses (the accredited author of Genesis) receives the ten commandment law and a vision of the creation of Heaven and Earth in six days. Observing the law of the Sabbath, Moses does not see anything created on the seventh day (of his vision).

If it is to be falsely assumed that the Sabbath day occurs first, chronologically, in Genesis, then the history from Adam to Moses would have mentioned the Sabbath being observed by others (i.e. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montazmeahii (talkcontribs) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Although some believe the Sabbath began in the 16th chapter of Exodus, other believe it began at Creation when the seventh day was set apart as a holy day (Genesis 2:2-3). Clearly the weekly cycle began in Genesis 1 rather than Exodus 16. This is attested to by the reference in the Hebrew Bible to Jacob's marriage week, and Noah releasing the dove every seven days. Marc Rasell 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sábado[edit]

Sábado looks a lot like Sabbath, and it's the Spanish word to Saturday. Could sábado have been derived from sabbath?

Sir Sanjuro (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Week-day_names#Starting_Sunday you can see the similarities between Sábado and other translations of Sabbath for Saturday. --Pnb73 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

The following dialogue was merged from "Talk:Day of rest", describing the merge of "day of rest" into "Sabbath". JJB 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not understand the purpose of this article. It will turn out to be a duplication of content that is already in "Sabbath", Shabat or Sabbath in Christianity. As it stands, it appears to have been copied word-for-word out of Sabbath in Christianity. It should be merged. Tonicthebrown 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I redirected it but the creator (no pun intended) reverted it back. As it stands, it is a redundant, useless stub. This page could also be turned into a disambiguation to point to Shabat and Sabbath in Christianity, which is my favored course of action at this time. Tim Shuba 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I created this article after seeing other articles that referenced Sabbath, intending it to mean a generic day of rest. The Sabbath article is a disambiguation page that references various days of rest, but also includes many other definitions of the term, with no definition of a day of rest. A day of rest is not just a Judeo-Christian concept, but transcends various religious communities, as seen by the references to the Day of Rest article from a wide variety of sources and other articles. The term is also used in secular fashion, as a justification for retention of blue laws. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its landmark 1961 ruling McGowan v. Maryland, cites the fact that "The present purpose and effect of most of our Sunday Closing Laws is to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens" [emphasis added] among its reasons for the constitutionality of such laws. Given all of these factors, the concept of a "Day of rest" exists independently of a Jewish or Christian Sabbath and its use as such justifies a standalone article. Alansohn 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not convinced. The blue laws which you have referenced are derived directly from the Christian concept of Sunday rest. Some people may claim it as a secular practice now, but the origins are entirely religious. As for your remarks about other articles, all the articles that link to "Day of rest" are religious in nature. Moreover, the Blue law article itself is very clear that the origins of such laws are religious.
There is no reason why the content here can't be merged into either Sabbath or Blue law. This article as it stands is a content fork. Tonicthebrown 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • While there is clearly (and necessarily) overlap with the target articles suggested, this article exists as a standalone article because neither article addresses the concept of a day of rest, either in its traditional religious usage or in its more recent secular definition. The effort to add a definition of "day of rest" at the Sabbath article is a well-intentioned effort, but it doesn't adequately elaborate the definition of the term, nor can the Sabbath article, in its current form as a disambiguation page, provide a proper and through definition of the term. The details regarding blue laws are already in that article, but specific references to the concept of a "secular day of rest" are included here that would make little sense in the Blue law article and would make no sense whatsoever to include in the Sabbath article. The claim that this is a content fork is unjustified, as it is not a fork of any existing article. As there is a need for a clear, well-defined and sourced meaning of a "day of rest", as this concept exists in multiple religions across the earth and is not a strictly Judeo-Christian concept, as there is no single place that would be a useful repository for this information, and as all of the proposed targets would fail to provide a proper definition, this article needs to exist, as is, on a standalone basis. Alansohn 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though people attribute a day of rest to various religious beliefs, there is nothing that says that people without religious beliefs do not deserve the same day of rest. There is no reason to call it anything other than a day of rest. People with religious beliefs call it by various names, all with respect to the Hebrew Shabbat. Non religious people may find it offensive to have to align themselves with something of a religious nature. Or people who are not of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and all the variants of them, may also find it offensive to have to align themselves in a similar manner. Just calling it a day of rest should be good enough. All people deserve to have at least one day off. Having to also align a day of rest with respect to any blue laws also puts one in mind of religious days, which those who have secular beliefs should not have to associate themselves with. Trying to force individuals to observe a day of rest on any one particular day will force them to change their lifestyles to comply with the whims of religious orders. It should be up to the individual to determine which day they would like to take off.Infidel at large (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have made "Sabbath" a pseudo-disambiguation page the concept "day of rest" can redirect there without intruding on the objections of the article's creators. Since "day of rest" might mean almost any of the subtopics on the "Sabbath" page (among which is the topic of blue laws), it is best to redirect to the top of that page. The first half of "day of rest" was already duplicated at Sabbath and Sabbath in Christianity, and the second half I have just merged into blue laws. This arrangement should help toward keeping all the Sabbath/rest day topics better-organized. JJB 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the work you've done. Good stuff. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pastafarian stuff[edit]

While funny and tangentially related to this, I'm not sure listing it with the other religions is appropriate. Shouldn't it be somewhere at the bottom in a miscellaneous section next to the episodes of the simpsons and pictures of Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski? 99.69.59.116 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let's stay serious.--169.233.38.55 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As an atheist, I find the pastafarian religion no more or less serious than any of the others. If anything, I have more respect for it, seeing how it doesn't feel the need to murder people who break its rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.149.238 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Some meme that people thought up in the last few years as a joke, clearly does not belong next to religions that people have believed in and seriously followed for many centuries. The Atheistic Religion does not have a Sabbath. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Pasta does belong in the article, as we have some very short-lived Stalin-era observances as well. Technically the atheistic sabbath could be any of those listed under "Secular traditions", as none require a god. Anyone care to sign in? JJB 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we add Burger & Fries Day, too? Wikipedia is enough of a joke already, may as well go all out, right? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia -- a think that brings together published research on a topic -- it should not be making judgements about what goes in or out of an article. If there is documented evidence that Pastafarians or the Church of the FSM celebrate shabbat then this information needs to be included. If you ignore it based on your personal religious beliefs then you are not qualified to be editing an encyclopedia and you should try your hand at writing religious texts instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.228.100 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 23 January 2015

Verifiability[edit]

The Wikipedia policy of Verifiability states that all material must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The summary style guideline does not mean that references are unneeded. First of all it's a guideline and not a policy and thus cannot overrule policy; secondly the summary style guideline regarding external links and references states that it's a good way to organize further reading and external link sections, not to get rid of them. It also states that not all references for the subtopic are needed in the main article, but that doesn't mean that none are needed. Instead it specifically it points back to the Verifiability policy noting that materials need references. On a separate note, there is no connection with the Islamic jumu'ah with the Baha'i day of rest; there is a connection with the Islamic day of rest with the Baha'i day of rest, but making the connection to congregational prayer which is specifically a prohibition in the Baha'i religion is original research and there are no sources making that connection. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


I have been editing this page a long time and am surprised by the speed of your reversion. Would you mind discussing please:

  1. Do you object to my amended wording that Istiqlal is "the same day as the Islamic jumu'ah", and if so why?
  2. What is the inclusion of your Baha'i source intended to achieve? So far it looks like it is merely intended to support a deletion in that it may say Istiqlal and jumu'ah are not related. But we don't footnote deleted text. Also I couldn't find what the page number referred to on that gigantic page; a chapter title would be good.
  3. Do you recognize that including only the Baha'i source on this page would be WP:UNDUE weight if you were not committed to importing the sourcing from all the subarticles (a project I would disagree with anyway)?
  4. Would you please make the full sourced changes you intend at Baha'i calendar so that we can review them and summarize them appropriately here?
  5. The longterm paradigm here is that the sourcing for this article is in the subarticles. Statements need not be referenced here because they are supposed to be identical to sourced statements in the subarticles; and statements unsourced there can be deleted here. (Of course, there is much synchronization still necessary, a project on my back burner; and synching should be preferred prior to outright deletion.) This fully complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:V. Why upset this applecart?

Reverting to status quo until I understand these points. Thank you. JJB 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I get to answering your specific points, the fact that you have editing this article for a long time does not mean that your edits are better or more appropriate than other people's edits who just start editing this page — please see WP:OWN.
  1. Yes I object to that wording because it makes a connection to congregational prayer, which doesn't exist in the Baha'i religion and no other source uses that wording or makes that connection; it's original research in it's current form. Remember all statements in Wikipedia need references from reliable sources.
  2. The source that I was adding makes it line with the verifiability policy which states that all material needs sources. That you don't think that it applies to this page is suspect. That the reference supports a deletion of some text is specifically what Wikipedia policies are about, since it allows for original research to creep in if it wasn't for them. For your reference the source states "Abdu'l-Bahá gives no reason whatever why Friday has been chosen as the day of rest in the Bahá'í calendar. He just affirms it."
  3. It would be undue if it was the only source and that's why the {{unreferenced}} tag is need and other references are needed. I've asked for clarification of the policy at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Clarification_about_Summary_Style.
  4. I've already made the changes at Baha'i calendar, removing the connection to the Islamic congregational prayer.
  5. Not true, SS does not override V, because other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, please see here
Regardless I'm not going to restore the {{unreferenced}} tag until there is clarification from the policy page, but I am going to remove the connection to the Islamic congregational prayer which has no supporting references anywhere. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Bahai reference I'm removing the reference to a Bahai day of rest, since it is tenuous at best. The only statement from Abdu'l-Baha to that effect that I know of is a pilgrim's note, from Remey and Struven:

Q. Which day of the week will the Bahais eventually observe as a day of rest? A. Friday. - Star of the West, Vol 1, No. 12, p. 2, from notes taken by Remey in Haifa, 1910


The other contents of these particular pilgrim's notes are more than usually suspicious: either the translator was very bad, or Remey's note-taking left much to be desired. Reliable or not, it's a pilgrim's note, not a Bahai teaching or law, and it is not in fact practiced by the Bahais. There's a single secretary's letter on the topic at http://bahai-library.com/hornby_lights_guidance&chapter=2#n372, but if this is simply commenting on the same pilgrim's note, it changes nothing. We can see from Remey's note that Abdu'l-Baha gave no reason, we are still left with the question of what he really said.

The problem is that while the answer "friday" is hardly ambiguous, we do not know what question the interpreter put to Abdu'l-Baha: it might not have been the same as the question that Remey asked. The questioners assume that there will be a day of rest like a sabbath, but in Islam there is no such day. The day of collective prayer, Friday, is not a day of rest. It is perfectly normal for people to go to work until noon, go to the mosque, and then return to work or take the afternoon off. Presumably the interpreter would have asked for the day of collective prayer (collective, but not congregational, prayer was part of Abdu'l-Baha's plan for the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar), rather than for the day of rest -- but perhaps the interpreter understood the Christian context and asked the Master what day the sabbat falls on, using the Persian version of the Hebrew word. Unless we have an authentic Persian text on the subject, it all remains guesswork, and a weak foundation for an encyclopaedia entry. ~~ Sen McGlinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen Mcglinn (talkcontribs) 09:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Your engaging in original research (not permissible by policy) by interpreting primary sources. Wikipedia's policy is that inclusion is based on verifiability and there are many secondary sources such as (1) Bellenir, Karen (2004). Religious Holidays and Calendars: An Encyclopedic Handbook (3 ed.). Omnigraphics. p. 154. ISBN 0780806654.  and (2) Template:Cite bootk as well as many others that state the day of rest is Friday. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please continue below at "What happened?". JJB 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_32#Clarification_about_Summary_Style

restoring tag[edit]

Dropping in from the above discussion at WT:V... I am replacing the tag.

I agree that if information is cited in one article, it does not necessarily have to be cited again in another article that summarizes the first. However, in this case, some of the information given here isn't referenced in the pointed to sub-articles (in fact, one of the sub-articles is itself tagged as being unreferenced). This calls into question all the information at this article, whether it is referenced at another article or not. To remove the tag, I would suggest that you review each section, and make sure that the information presented is either actually referenced at the pointed to article or is referenced in this one. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for your eyeballing this for us.
Well, in response to Jeff, I appreciate your thorough answer. The fact that I mention my familiarity with the article does not mean that I believe my edits are better or that I need to be reminded against that, and one can see WP:AGF about that.
Next, stating that something is on the same day as something else is not OR, it's basic math. If, however, you hold that merely stating the identity is applying undue weight to it, then I apologize for saying "Islamic jumu'ah" instead of "Islamic day of rest" (as I was actually thinking), which does not have the (potential, remote) undue weight issue you mentioned. But now you've cited the page clearly and given a preferred subarticle phrasing, and so one can run with the authoritative statement.
I've enjoyed the debate at WT:V regularly. Policy says "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", not "all material". I do think it applies to this page. But blanket claims that all material is unreferenced and suspect, can also be suspect. I will happily reference challenged material, but the referencing of statements not challenged specifically is not a high priority. JJB 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that a fair amount of this article is indeed "common knowledge", and really does not need to be cited. However, I still think at least one citation should be given for each subsection. Certainly anything specific as to how the less "mainstream" religious faith practices Sabbath should be cited here. This should not be difficult... for a lot of it, you can probably use one of the citations that are at the linked articles. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

My comment at the start of this talk was that the page can easily remain noncontroversial; that has been the consensus of the past year. Now we have two editors who are informing me that Baha'i may, or may not, have a day of rest. The scope of this page is that, IF having a day of rest is at least one significant POV within Baha'i, which it clearly is per three sources, THEN it's within the scope. Further, IF not having a day of rest is another significant POV within Baha'i, THEN the page can say "some say this some that". (I understand that the notion, that Baha'i has only one POV at all, is itself also a significant POV.) Until these two editors resolve their disagreement at Baha'i calendar, there is no need for the Baha'i section here to say any more than I have cut it back to say. Please let me know when you achieve peace. JJB 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam Traditions[edit]

Why are we not allowed to have the correct muslim beliefs in the islamic section. In the Quran the Sabbath and Juma are two separate distinct things. The Quran says that God does not rest and Muslim people do not beleive that God 'rested' on the 7th day.

The reason Saturday is called Sabt is because it is the 7th day of the week. The word Sabt means the number seven in arabic.

The Quran does talk about the Sabbath but as a tradition of the former people. Juma is supposed to replace the Sabbath. People are allowed to work on Friday's but must drop everything they are doing to attend the Friday prayers.

62.09 O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for you if ye but knew!

There are several verses in the Quran that talk specifically about the Sabbath.

(2.65) And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated. (4.47) O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violators of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed. (4.154) And We lifted the mountain (Sinai) over them at (the taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant. (7.163) And ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath, appearing on the surface of the water, and on the day on which they did not keep the Sabbath they did not come to them; thus did We try them because they transgressed. (16.124) The Sabbath was ordained only for those who differed about it, and most surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that about which they differed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.178.91 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How many Sabbath article forks does Wikipedia need?[edit]

There seem to be nine. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as this topic was originally conceived as a pseudodab (disambiguation by grafs rather than lines), every section is a prong of a fork, and there are about 30 in all. A lot of uncommented editing has gone through, which I am reviewing and enfolding. I'm also dropping the unreferenced or refimprove tag, as the intent was that all references be moved to the subarticles. JJB 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: So far as I can tell, nothing much has changed here in 3+ years, but I find myself asking the same thing, particularly as I am finding well-meaning but flawed editing all over the place, perhaps the result of some OR that's been questioned here and there. I find the article Sabbath in Christianity seems to point outward to several other forks, but is mostly self-originate within the topic, so I've been focusing efforts there for a while, as a center of operations. I intend to clean up basic content first, but perhaps then some consideration could be given towards merging some of the forks. Do you think that idea has some merit? Evensteven (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That could only be an improvement In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(summary_style)#References summary style articles must be able to stand on their own. Currently the article has zero references. So while I understand that User:John J. Bulten is working to reference the article, but until that time, the template should stay to warn readers that the article is not referenced. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A small question[edit]

@Editor2020:, could you give me the reason you capitalized eastern and western in the wikilinks under the Christianity section? If I'm not mistaken, the capitals do not follow MOS guidelines, and they're not necessary for using the links. But I don't see you do things without a reason, so I thought there might be something I'm not seeing. Evensteven (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven:, I believe that these are proper nouns and require capitalization. That seems to be the usage at both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. If this is not correct, my apologies and please change them back. Editor2020, Talk 15:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it might be a matter of opinion. I've seen plenty of arguments at MOS talk about views of other items considered proper names (or not). And real-world usage and style guides always seem to provide ample examples either way. My personal opinion is no, these are not proper names. I tend to think that people these days go rather hog-wild with capitals sometimes, and this seems an extension towards that. But that's just a view, and I think historically it shifts around in the English language. 250 years ago, all sorts of documents capitalized words all over the place, and it was just common practice. So no, I don't mind your change, given that the matter is more one person's view or another's, or just a preference. Of all things, I think the most ridiculous would be to get anyone started discussing why it should be one way or the other. In my experience, that's a waste of time and just detracts from efforts better spent elsewhere. Evensteven (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine[edit]

This section title is the title of a source given in the article's section "Seventh-day versus First-day", in which said source is quoted at some length. I cannot say if the author was genuinely a Catholic priest or not, or if the source itself was a genuine catechism in its time (1946). I can say that it does not well represent (in fact, it misrepresents) actual Catholic teaching. While it correctly professes that the Sabbath is Saturday, the remaining "answers" are just plain wrong. The Council of Laodicea did not in fact transfer any observance from Saturday to Sunday, but affirmed that the reading of the Gospel at Mass must occur on Saturday just as it does on Sunday, keeping the Eucharistic celebration consistent on whatever day it is celebrated (Canon 16). And it did prohibit observing the Sabbath as a day of rest (Canon 29). Furthermore, Constantine's civil law about Sunday rest was in no way an ecclesial reason for celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday, as that is widely attested in volumes of other source as being in remembrance of the Resurrection of Christ. Besides, the disparaging tone towards Constantine scarcely represents a Catholic attitude towards a saint. As for authority in establishing observances, the Catholic Church (and many others) agree that the Church does have the authority, but the "answer" given in the catechism is merely circular and of no account, scarcely what anyone could believe was a carefully worked-out Catholic doctrine. I am removing that source and its quotes from the article as not reliable. Evensteven (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

NIV to KJV[edit]

I wish to register an objection to the edit that changed the Biblical quotes from NIV to KJV. A specific translation may make a relationship to the article text clearer, so it should be left as entered. If the article text is changed significantly, then for similar reasons the Bible reference could be also. But there should be no principle of uniformity in an article, requiring any one translation over another. If someone wants to see a different one, the reference target makes it quite easy. That should be enough for the article. Anything else tends to be pointy because it only incites editors to translation advocacy. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Saturday Sabbath in Protestantism[edit]

I quite take the point that editor 207.55.0.196 was making with this edit, but I avoided putting it into the article when I did the earlier rewrite because I could find no verification within Protestantism. Without question, the general belief in Protestantism is that worshipping on Sunday, and resting on Sunday, are the way that Christians keep the Sabbath commandment. Seventh-day sabbatarians generally believe that the worship and rest must take place on Saturday in order to keep the Sabbath, and therein lies the main dividing line. But what I could not find were Protestant expressions about the Sabbath being on Saturday. I think there's a very widespread perception in Protestantism that the Sabbath was moved to Sunday, often then called the "Christian Sabbath". What is not confirmed is whether or not that common perception has ever been embraced in Protestantism as a doctrine, attested to by the leadership or taught in religious schools or released as statements from church members. What is clear is that Orthodox and Catholic doctrine never changed the Sabbath day; there it remains Saturday, as is firmly attested within those churches. Another thing (historical) which is also clear, is that the Reformation leaders never seemed to have any difficulty with the idea of Sabbath on Saturday. In fact, the Augsburg Confession criticizes the idea that it might be changed to Sunday. So far as I know, not even the branch of Puritans who were Sunday sabbatarians ever said Sunday was the Sabbath, even though they were quite strong about Sunday worship being a part of obeying the Sabbath commandment. Every real doctrinal indication in Protestantism for Saturday Sabbath keeps coming up as simple Biblical reference, and my feeling has been that this is the most solid indicator of Protestant doctrine that there can be. But what of "Christian Sabbath" = Sunday? I don't know what to make of that, as many things are changing within Protestantism these days, and different denominations have different ideas about doctrine (and there are so many denominations as well).

I think it best to set this edit aside until such time as we can hear from some Protestants here as to what the present state of doctrine and belief of members is, before we move to saying something quite this universal. I'd be happy to hear that Protestants really firmly hold to the idea that the Sabbath is Saturday, for I think that's where the whole of Christianity came from. But it should be shown somehow, because the Sabbath articles had long made claims about the Sunday "Christian Sabbath" without its being challenged, and that's left me quite unsure about just what Protestants think today. Let's not overreach and develop some kind of controversy. Evensteven (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

messiah healing sabbath church[edit]

We speak what we knew and testifie on what we have observed, who believe it? We knew sabba is real and meanig the last day in a week rhyming to Saturday, and somany people have been deceived against truth of which sabbath-church is a truth Exodus 20.8 197.210.24.183 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)