RationalWiki talk:Annotated Bible/Exodus

Something very weird seems to have happened to the formatting of this page. Bits of visible HTML start popping up around Exodus 14:7 and everything completely shifts over to the right half of the page by Chapter 15. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jayzus / talk / contribs 2013-10-06T19:16:45‎}

I can't see what's wrong at a glance ... anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things showing from 14:8 onwards, but I don't see everything shifted to the right. The left columns are empty because no-one's written anything in them yet. Sophie^Wilder 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The error was introduced with an unclosed tag here. Block this person indefinitely.

It's too bad this page is made with a table based layout rather than with RW's side by side template. The template is a lot easier to manage. This table layout isn't even semantically correct or properly formatted. 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like ALL the annotated bible pages are made with tables. At least (and I'm a very dumb person) what it looks like in the edit window is similar in all of them as compared to, say, 101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_earth_and_the_universe. Converting them all seems like quite an undertaking for what's IMO a tragically underused part of the wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jayzus / talk / contribs 2013-10-07T16:42:47‎}

So get to work! %-D - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No effin way is this a good use of anyone's time. Lol. 20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

About Exodus 21:22 Notes

Exodus 21:22 does not say that someone must only pay a fine for killing a pregnant woman. "so that her fruit depart from her" does not mean that the woman dies, but that she miscarries. This is obvious in more modern translations. YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 22:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Text updated. Edger Halogen (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert in Bible matters, but unsurprisingly there seems to be modern contention about what the passage means.[1] If you want to make a claim about it's meaning, it's always good to add a citation to a published source. Bongolian (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Exodus 15

Joel Baden, whose tweet I used as a source, is a Biblical scholar who wrote a book about the documentary hypothesis. Ioe bidome (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Either the book you mention supports the addition you made to the article, in which case you could replace the Twitter "source" with a proper book citation, or it doesn't support the addition you made, in which case it is irrelevant to mention the book here (and we're back to questioning the worth of adding a Tweet as a source). I vote that we don't start down the route of using Twitter to support the cause of RationalWiki. Edger Halogen (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the tweet or did you remove it because it was cited to a tweet? Ioe bidome (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Before that, is there any chance you could address the point I made about your book link? Thanks. Edger Halogen (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the book has similar contents to the tweet (I have not read the book). I got the inspiration to add the citation to the tweet from this. 22:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned the book because i believed it was evidence that Joel Baden is someone we should cite, even though he used twitter Ioe bidome (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

So as far as you know, the book doesn't support your addition to the article. Your "inspiration" (which is just the bible) isn't justification to use Twitter as a means to "support" information that RationalWiki is imparting to its readers. I've asked a moderator to look at this, so I'll wait and abide by their input. Edger Halogen (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If you actually look at the link, you'll see that passages of it are in different colors that other passages. (That site is also linked to from Documentary hypothesis). In that, you'll find citations that support which color a passage is. Those are (Almost universally, tbh,) cited to Joel Baden on twitter. Ioe bidome (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Twitter itself is just a platform. The problem is finding reliable sources on it. If the person posting something is generally reliable, be they, say, a journalist covering a warzone and they upload something, or a Biblical scholar posting some informed opinions on the Bible, I don't think using Twitter is too much of a problem. Carthage (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand this (and you are right), however the platform (and especially the Tweet in question) is not conducive to any sort of academic rigour. Without any indication of things like peer review, how do we know the Tweet isn't an example of a published author simply blowing out a bit of personal steam? Edger Halogen (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's far better to cite the book in this case, since it's a university press (Yale), it is very likely to have peer review. Also for Twitter citations when necessary, it's far better to cite an archived copy of the tweet due to the ephemerality of Twitter. Bongolian (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've found a copy of the book. I'll cite it now.Ioe bidome (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Exodus 21:17

The verse does not say "...disobedient children could be put to death." The King James version says "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." There's a huge difference between "could" and "shall surely". ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.101.103.53 / talk / contribs}