User talk:RSmith1982

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Saturday appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Since I don't understand these edits to Saturday or those edits made as 74.61.182.247, could you point me to a book or webpage that describes the topic you're concerned about? It may already be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps you were thinking of Yom Kippur? JJB 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an on-going controversy with plenty of evidence on the side of the Hebrew Calendar not being able to be connected to our contemporary calendar religiously, mathematically, or historically. If Wikipedia takes any stance it should be to present the facts of both sides and put it under a label of controversies. Since the controversy is a religious controversy over a holy day I don't see why the subject should be on Saturday at all, but on an entirely different entry on the Sabbath alone, but if you disagree and feel it should be put in this entry it should not be a firm stance on Sabbath, but a statement of the on-going controversy and the facts of both sides. I personally feel it's plain that Sabbath and Saturday being connected are like putting Pluto under planets because some still believe it's a planet.

I would be glad to give you the several references about the Jewish day of rest in their Hebrew lunar calendar, vs the Greek day of Saturnus on their solar calendar.

I understand the benefit of offering neutral information. My primary goal was to state that the point on the Jewish holy day and Saturday was not being illustrated from a neutral perspective on Wikipedia and most likely would benefit the viewers in a section of beliefs and/or controversies because many Jewish synagogues do not take Saturday as their rest and other religious organizations such as Messianic Jews, Anglo-Hebrew Israelites, Black-Hebrew Israelites, Holiness, etc., would agree that the text from which the day of rest was born (Torah, Holy Bible) was never remotely connected to the Greek religion as the day of rest was instituted before the people spoken about who first took this holy day had access to any written calendar let alone one a Julian or Roman.

This is just to balance what was previously not balanced, but pegged on a mistake, whether it's a mistake or not I won't argue me point, but I will say a firm decision-to-be-fact should not be made in any Encyclopedia without sufficient proof.

Consider a discussion stating that Sunday is the last day of the week. Wikipedia shouldn't take a firm stance on that but present the two standards for Monday vs Sunday starting weeks and likewise with Saturday if the believed connection to the Jewish Sabbath must be considered here.

Consider these references:

Leviticus 23:"26And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 27Also on the tenth day of this seventh monththere shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 28And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. 29For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. 30And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. 31Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 32It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

Here in the Torah it's clear that there is another sabbath from the Mosaic law that is on the tenth day after the 7th moon which completely debunks the tie between "sabbath" and the topic of Saturday. Sabbath means rest, not Saturday. There are many Sabbaths, new moon sabbaths, weekly sabbaths, annual sabbaths, etc.

http://www.lunarsabbath.com/

http://www.lunarsabbath.info/

http://www.creationcalendar.com/

http://www.lunarsabbath.org/ This reference is offering $10,000 to anyone who can accurately connect the Sabbath to anyday other than those tracked by the phases of the moon (the historical means for tracking days before sufficient astronomical and mathematical advancements had been made that were prerequisites to being able to perform the calculations that birthed our contemporary calendar systems of tracking time that though nearly parallel with stars, moons and planets are not based on them as all historical calendars were).

http://bayithamashiyach.com/Shabbat.html

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/nivenspyder/

http://yahwehstruelunarsabbathcalendar.blogspot.com/

By the way. The word "month" etymologically comes from the word "moon". ALL cultures of the world originally would state months by saying, it's been 6 moons or in 3 moons, etc. because there were no other calendars other than the sky.

It's not so much about religion or belief for like a people who don't believe in the existance of a star can't study the photonic rays of light from our sun without looking into the sun, we also cannot study the Sabbath without going to it's source, the Torah.

Leviticus 23:3 Hebrew Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear) שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִים֮ תֵּעָשֶׂ֣ה מְלָאכָה֒ וּבַיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י שַׁבַּ֤ת שַׁבָּתֹון֙ מִקְרָא־ קֹ֔דֶשׁ כָּל־ מְלָאכָ֖ה לֹ֣אתַעֲשׂ֑וּ שַׁבָּ֥ת הִוא֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל מֹֽושְׁבֹתֵיכֶֽם׃ פ

הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י - translated "the seventh" and is pronounced ha·she·vi·'i

שַׁבַּ֤ת is translated "rest" and is pronounced shab·bat

שַׁבַּ֤ת comes from the parent and root word שָׁבַת which is pronounced Sha-vat which means to cease or stop. As you'll notice only the dagesh is removed from the בַּ֤ rd the accent marks were not in the original square-type Aramaic text so the two words were virtually the same, but pronounced different making one rest and was pronounced with a "v" sound inplace of the "b" sound if you were likely saying to rest, but saying to cease. The Rabbis of old added these accents just to preserve pronounciation, but this proves that Sabbath meant rest no seventh or Saturday.

I hope these references help you to see that to be an unbiased source of accurate knowledge (Encyclopedia) you can't put pluto in the topic of planets UNLESS you put it under controversy.

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. An edit that you recently made to The Exodus seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Exodus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]