Ten Commandments Deep Dive Series — Methodology¶

This file defines the methodology for ALL studies in the cmd-XX series (Ten Commandments Deep Dive). Every analysis agent MUST follow this methodology.

Central Question¶

What does the Bible say about each of the Ten Commandments?

This is an expository series, not a debate. Each study examines what the Bible teaches about one commandment — its origin, meaning, Hebrew/Greek word studies, OT application, prophetic expansion, NT treatment by Jesus and the apostles, and cross-references across Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

There are no "positions" to investigate. The goal is to report what the text says.

Investigative Methodology (include verbatim in every agent prompt)¶

INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY:
- You are an investigator, not an advocate. Your job is to report what the evidence says.
- Gather evidence comprehensively. Trace the commandment from Genesis to Revelation.
- Do NOT state opinions. State what the text says.
- Do not use editorial characterizations like "genuine tension," "strongest argument,"
  "most significant challenge," "honestly acknowledge," or "non-intuitive reading."
  Simply state what each passage says.
- When presenting findings, state: "The text says X" (explicit). Then if needed:
  "From this, it follows that Y" (necessary implication) or
  "This has been interpreted to mean Z" (inference).
- Never use language like "irrefutable," "obviously," or "clearly proves."
  Use "the text states," "this is consistent with."
- The conclusion should emerge FROM the evidence, not be imposed ON it.

Evidence Classification (REQUIRED in every CONCLUSION.md)¶

Every CONCLUSION.md MUST include a multi-tier evidence classification section. The tiers are Explicit, Necessary Implication, and Inference (with four inference subtypes: I-A, I-B, I-C, I-D).

The classification is about what THE BIBLE says, not what individual verses say in isolation: - Explicit: "The Bible says X" — you can point to a verse that says X. - Necessary Implication: "The Bible implies X" — you can point to verses that, when combined, force X with no alternative. - Inferred: "Someone claims the Bible teaches X" — but no verse says it and no combination of verses forces X. Something must be added that the text does not contain. Inferences are further classified into four types (I-A, I-B, I-C, I-D) based on source and direction.

Evidence Hierarchy: E > N > I-A > I-B (resolved by SIS) > I-C > I-D

CRITICAL RULE: Inferences cannot block explicit statements or necessary implications. If explicit texts and necessary implications establish X, the existence of passages that could be inferred to teach not-X does not prevent X from being a necessary implication.

1. Explicit Statements Table¶

#	Explicit Statement	Reference	Category
E1	[What the text directly says — a quote or close paraphrase]	[Book Chapter:Verse]	[See categories below]

Rules for explicit statements: - The text must directly say this. Quote or closely paraphrase the actual words of Scripture. - One explicit statement per verse or closely related verse cluster. - A paraphrase of a single verse in different words is still explicit. "Thou shalt not kill" = "God forbids murder" → explicit (same verse, same meaning). - THE MEANING OF WORDS IS EXPLICIT. If a single verse uses a word, what that word means is part of the explicit statement.

2. Necessary Implications Table¶

#	Necessary Implication	Based on	Why it is unavoidable
N1	[What unavoidably follows from explicit statements]	[Which E# statement(s)]	[Why no reader could deny this conclusion from those statements]

Rules for necessary implications: - A necessary implication follows unavoidably from one or more explicit statements. - No additional concept, framework, or interpretation is required — only understanding what the words mean. - Every reader, regardless of theological position, must agree this follows. If a reasonable reader could disagree, it is an inference, not a necessary implication.

STRICTER N-TIER TEST:

Ask these three questions for EACH N item:

Universal agreement test: Would a scholar from ANY theological tradition necessarily agree this follows from the cited E statements?
If NO → it's an inference, not a necessary implication
No interpretation required test: Does this require choosing between possible meanings, or is it the only possible meaning?
If it requires choosing → it's an inference (I-B)
Zero added concepts test: Does this add ANY concept, framework, or connection not present in the explicit statements themselves?
If YES → it's an inference

3. Inferences Table (4-Type Taxonomy)¶

#	Claim	Type	What the Bible actually says	Why this is an inference	Criteria
I1	[The claim about what the Bible teaches]	[I-A/I-B/I-C/I-D]	[What the relevant verses actually say — cite E# and N# items AND include actual verse references]	[What must be added beyond what the text contains]	[Which criterion/criteria apply]

The 4-Type Inference Taxonomy¶

	Aligns with E/N	Conflicts with E/N
Derived from E/N	I-A (Evidence-Extending)	I-B (Competing-Evidence)
Not derived from E/N	I-C (Compatible External)	I-D (Counter-Evidence External)

I-A (Evidence-Extending): Uses ONLY vocabulary and concepts found in E/N statements. Only an inference because it systematizes multiple E/N items into a broader claim.

I-B (Competing-Evidence): Some E/N statements support it, but other E/N statements appear to contradict it. Genuine textual tension where both sides can cite Scripture. Resolved by the Scripture-Interprets-Scripture (SIS) protocol.

I-C (Compatible External): Reasoning from outside the text (theological tradition, philosophical framework, historical context) that does not contradict any E/N statements.

I-D (Counter-Evidence External): External concepts that require overriding, redefining, or qualifying E/N statements to be maintained.

Inference Criteria¶

An inference MUST require at least one of these: 1. Adding a concept the text doesn't state 2. Choosing between two possible readings 3. Applying an external framework 4. Cross-referencing (4a: SIS with verified connection = not an inference trigger; 4b: without verified connection = inference trigger) 5. Systematizing into a doctrine

Category Classification (replaces Positional Classification)¶

Since this series is expository (not debate), items are classified by category instead of position:

Commandment Scope — What the commandment prohibits or requires (its literal and expanded meaning)
Word Study — Hebrew/Greek vocabulary analysis, definitions, semantic ranges
Biblical Application — How the commandment is applied in OT narratives, laws, prophets
NT Treatment — How Jesus, the apostles, and NT authors treat the commandment
Theological Significance — What the commandment reveals about God's character, human nature, or the divine-human relationship
Cross-Commandment — How this commandment connects to other commandments or broader biblical themes

These categories are used in the evidence database (classification field). The evidence_db.py --classification flag accepts these values for the cmd series.

Scripture-Interprets-Scripture (SIS) Principle¶

When a passage about the commandment is unclear, use clearer passages to interpret it:

#4a (SIS with verified textual connection) — NOT an inference trigger. Document the connection (shared vocabulary, OT quotation, tool-verified parallel).
#4b (cross-referencing without verified textual connection) — IS an inference trigger.

I-B Resolution Protocol¶

When an inference has competing textual support (I-B), apply this 5-step process:

Step 1: Identify tension. List E/N items FOR and AGAINST the claim.

Step 2: Assess clarity of each E/N item: - Plain: Directly addresses the topic; no interpretation needed - Contextually Clear: Addresses the topic but requires context awareness - Ambiguous: Could plausibly be read either way

Step 3: Count and weigh. Plain statements outweigh Ambiguous ones.

Step 4: Apply SIS. Plain statements determine the reading of Ambiguous ones.

Step 5: State resolution. Strong / Moderate / Unresolved.

Classification Decision Trees¶

Tree 1 — Tier Classification¶

Q1: Does this directly quote or closely paraphrase the actual words
    of a specific verse or verse cluster?
    NO  -> go to N-CHECK
    YES -> go to E-CHECK

E-CHECK:
  E1: Is this the plain lexical meaning of those words —
      no concept, framework, or interpretation added?
      YES -> TIER: E (Explicit). Stop.
      NO  -> go to N-CHECK

N-CHECK:
  N1: Does this follow unavoidably from one or more E-items?
      NO  -> TIER: I (Inference). Stop. Go to Tree 2 (I-Type).
      YES -> go to N2

  N2: Would a scholar from ANY tradition necessarily agree this
      follows from the cited E-items, without any additional reasoning?
      NO  -> TIER: I. Stop. Go to Tree 2.
      YES -> go to N3

  N3: Does reaching this conclusion require choosing between
      two possible meanings?
      YES -> TIER: I. Stop. Go to Tree 2.
      NO  -> go to N4

  N4: Does this add ANY concept not present in the cited E-items?
      YES -> TIER: I. Stop. Go to Tree 2.
      NO  -> TIER: N (Necessary Implication). Stop.

Tree 2 — I-Type Classification¶

SOURCE TEST:
  S1: Strip away systematization. Are ALL remaining components
      found in the E/N tables?
      YES -> text-derived -> go to DIRECTION TEST (text-derived)
      NO  -> external -> go to DIRECTION TEST (external)

DIRECTION TEST (text-derived):
  D1: Does this claim require any E/N statement to mean something
      other than its plain lexical value?
      NO  -> TYPE: I-A (Evidence-Extending). Stop.
      YES -> TYPE: I-B (Competing-Evidence). Stop.
            [I-B requires a full SIS Resolution subsection.]

DIRECTION TEST (external):
  D2: Does this claim override, redefine, or qualify any E/N statement?
      NO  -> TYPE: I-C (Compatible External). Stop.
      YES -> TYPE: I-D (Counter-Evidence External). Stop.

Verification Phase (REQUIRED)¶

After completing all tables, run this verification check:

Step A: Verify explicit statements: - Does each E-statement directly quote or closely paraphrase actual verse text? - Is it actually just the plain meaning of the words in the verse?

Step B: Verify necessary implications: - Does each N follow unavoidably from the cited E statements? - Apply the three N-tier tests. If any test fails → move to Inferences.

Step C: Verify inference classifications (source test): - Strip away systematization. All components in E/N tables? → text-derived (I-A or I-B). Otherwise → external (I-C or I-D).

Step D: Verify inference classifications (direction test): - Does the claim require any E/N statement to mean something other than its lexical value? → conflicts (I-B or I-D). Otherwise → aligns (I-A or I-C).

Step E: Run consistency checks: - Every I-A: Only requires criterion #5? If it requires #1, #2, or #3, reclassify. - Every I-B: E/N items on BOTH sides? If only one side, reclassify. - Every I-D: Overrides at least one E/N statement? If not, reclassify as I-C.

Master Evidence Database (REQUIRED before writing Tally)¶

The evidence database (D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db, managed by D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db) holds all E/N/I items registered by every study.

Standard Evidence DB Workflow¶

Step 1 — Check for duplicates before adding:

python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db find E --ref "Exo 20:13" --text "thou shalt not kill"
python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db search "thou shalt not kill murder"

If match found: Use the existing master ID. Record your study:

python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db also-in E010 cmd-XX

If no match: Proceed to Step 2.

Step 2 — Reserve the next available ID:

python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db next-id E

Step 3 — Add the item:

python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db add E \
  --id E001 \
  --statement "Thou shalt not kill." \
  --ref "Exo 20:13" \
  --classification Neutral \
  --study cmd-07

Step 4 — Note in CONCLUSION.md:

Evidence items registered in D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db

Verification¶

python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db tally
python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-evidence.db list --tier E

Master Study Database¶

The study DB (D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db) indexes the full prose analysis from every completed study.

Before starting — query prior analysis¶

python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db find-passage "Exo 20:13"
python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db find-word "ratsach"
python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db search "murder kill sixth commandment" --top 5

Also query the law series databases (read-only cross-reference):

python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/law-study.db search "sixth commandment murder" --top 5
python D:/bible/evidence_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/law-evidence.db search "thou shalt not kill"

After completing — register the new study¶

python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db ingest D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-XX-study-name
python D:/bible/study_db.py --db D:/bible/bible-studies/cmd-study.db embed --update

Tally Summary Format¶

- Explicit statements: [count]
- Necessary implications: [count]
- Inferences: [count]
  - I-A (Evidence-Extending): [count]
  - I-B (Competing-Evidence): [count] ([N] resolved, [M] unresolved)
  - I-C (Compatible External): [count]
  - I-D (Counter-Evidence External): [count]

What CAN Be Said / What CANNOT Be Said¶

What CAN be said (Scripture explicitly states or necessarily implies): - [List — draw from both Explicit and Necessary Implication tables]

What CANNOT be said (not explicitly stated or necessarily implied by Scripture): - [List of things the text does not directly say or necessarily imply — including things commonly assumed]

Critical Rules Governing the Hierarchy¶

E > N > I-A > I-B > I-C > I-D. Higher-tier evidence governs the interpretation of lower-tier claims.
Inferences cannot block explicit statements or necessary implications.
I-A inferences are the strongest inferences because they use only the text's own vocabulary and concepts.
I-B inferences require the SIS protocol. Both sides have textual support. The resolution must be documented.
I-D inferences bear the heaviest burden. They require overriding what the text says with concepts the text does not contain.
SIS connections (#4a) are not inference triggers. Using clear passages to interpret unclear ones — when the connection is verified — is standard hermeneutics.