Talk:Ten Commandments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal Ten Commandments is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Zealotry. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

Christianity Portal Ten Commandments is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Ten Commandments was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives
1 2 3

[edit] Criticism of 10 comandments

I would like to add a section which give space for criticism of the ten commandments. E.g. mention that none of the comandmends forbids torturing. Does something like this makes sense or is it out of place in Wikipedia? Please give me your opinion on this.

[edit] "Now Bring me a tool shed, for i am hungry"

"Now Bring me a tool shed, for i am hungry" in the 6th verse of Deuteronomy. Is that supposed to be there? I'm no expert, but that doesn't seem right.

Well, I suppose that it is no more rediculous than "thou shalt not cook a kid in its mother's milk", but no, it is not supposed to be there.Steve kap 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Vandalism

Would someone care to tell the person who replaced with the entire page with 99kb worth of "HOWARD STERNS PENIS" to get a life?

   Appreciate it,--AaronFX 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The table in "Division of the commandments" has been completely vandelised, 72.75.89.172 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

22:17 - Seen it and tried to fix it, but I don't know much about ten commandments, so It might be not exactly accurate (murder-vs kill and this sort of things...)

Can someone sort out the vandalism? Its still there and very offensive.

[edit] Numbering of Commandments

The article currently lists a combined Jewish and protestant numbering of the commandments. However, the typical Jewish understanding has the first "commandment" as "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." This matches the Hebrew text calling them the ten words, as the first is not a commandment. This is further reflected in the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Decalogue, to which the article links. The numbering then includes a single command against coveting and a combination of "no other gods" and " no idols." Perhaps important to point out, the masoretic text includes duplicate accents (those used for verse divisions) on several of the lines in the Decalogue. This probably reflects the presence of several numbering traditions when the accents were being added. Of importance to this article is the fact that there is conflict here between the explanation given from Sefer ha-Chinuch and that found in the Jewish Encyclopedia. To change the numbering now in the "Division of the commandments" section will conflict with the similarly named section under Jewish understanding. I believe the numbering I am proposing is more accurate and should be preferred. I am adding it as "Traditional Jewish." Unregistered editor. 10-27-2006

Thats as may be, but the "ten words" sentence is in and CLEARLY ref's to the 10C in Exodus 34, the so called "Ritual 10C", NOT the 10C of this article.

Steve kap 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment about the ten words was meant to counter the objection that the first commandment does not include an imperative. It was not meant as a ruling on which set of commandments the biblical text is labeling with its use of the term. The edit was done for the sake of consistency with the already cited sources. As I have not edited articles here before, I recognize that my edit could have missed the spirit of wikipedia. My intention, however, was not to violate Wikipedia:Can of Worms. Unregistered Editor who just learned how to sign. 65.79.30.55 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you violated anything, and I am the one who is opening the can of worms, you just gave me the excuse. Having said that, I do persist in stating that "the ten words" text, along with the story of the stones, belong with the RTC, according to the written bible. It's there, written. Anyone can read it. Steve kap 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In God's Name

Commandment three "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God".

I believe doesn't have so much to do with swearing but to use the authority of God wrongfully. When you do something in someone's Name that means that you are acting as their agent. So when you use God's name to justify a wrongful act that is when you break that commandment. Throughout history lots of wrongful deeds have been done in God's name.

[edit] It's Kill not Murder

The biblical reference in the 7th commandment is clearly to "kill" and not "murder" as some have said.

The Hebrew word for kill in Ex 20:13 is ratsach. The word for slay in Ex 32:27 is haraq. There are about 10 words which indicating killing or slaying, and throughout the bible you will find various references to these words that are inside and outside the boundaries of justified murder or killing. There is no credible evidence whatsoever within the bible that the 7th commandment specifically implies "murder". For additional references consult the Hebrew translations of Numbers 35:6-34; verse 27 shows that the term ratsach can be considered a justified killing; Proverbs 22:13 uses the same "kill" translation, ratsach to describe a lion killing a man.

Please stop changing the definitions - the bible itself clearly indicates that the term is more ambiguous than "murder".

רָצַח‎ means 'to murder'. My source for that claim is the Hebrew language itself. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 01:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

whether or not there is a difference in word usage is not important. what is important is whether there is a difference in the implications of either term. As of now, I fail to see the difference between "kill" and "murder", both hold the same implciations. which is something along the lines of "to end someones life against there wishes. Or to prevent someone from living, when, if given the choice, they would have chose to continue living" Or something along those general lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.163.65 (talk • contribs).

Anon, you fail to see it, but reliable sources consistently do. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Killing includes all killing, such as the execution of a criminal convicted of a capital offense, and the killing of an enemy soldier by a person fight a defensive war. Both are not considered to be murder either in the bible, or in modern society. I'd explain this further, but honestly, I went through this in much greater detail in an online forum, and I'm really just not up to doing it. It just leads to an absurd fight that could be resolved with a dictionary but for some reason rarely is. --Hrodulf 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Every printed English copy of the Bible I've seen has "kill" rather than "murder" -- perhaps this has been changed in more recent printings as suggested elsewhere in this discussion. Nevertheless, this is a major shift in meaning, even if not necessarily a shift in how it has been observed by most religions. This bears mention in the article, preferably a history of the translation and change from "kill" to "murder" and the rationale for it. The current situation, where Wikipedia lists something obviously different than what is in print without explanation or clarification, suggests that this article is being exploited by those who wish to assert their doctrine rather than record settled fact. --Charomina 14:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the King James version says "Thou shalt not kill" whereas the New International Version has it as "You shall not murder". Conservative evangelical types - especially in the US - seem to prefer the latter, possibly because they think it allows them to support wars, capital punishment etc. without seeming to go against the bible. MFlet1 4 December 2006

[edit] Killing

Thou shalt not murder is explained as Killing an innocent human being is a capital sin. There is a very big difference between the two. Thou shalt not murder is a very simple, easy to follow commandment. Adding the word "innocent" makes it a lot more ambiguous. Where where the explanations taken from? Piet 07:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Most are from Rashi. This one is so obvious that Rashi doesn't comment on it, but lo laharog naki (not to kill an innocent person) is the phrase used by Sefer ha-Chinnuch, amongst others. The obvious reason is that certain non-innocent people don't fall under the prohibition, e.g. capital criminals, a rodef (i.e. act of self-defense) etc.

The punishment is by beheading by the sword (hereg), so it is a capital sin. JFW | T@lk 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone just changed the explanation to "killing ANY human being...", that would seem more just to me. But if this religion thinks killing is ok sometimes I guess we should revert him. Piet 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considering the extraordinarily hard to fathom idea that maybe Judaism is not monolithic on this issue? The article should reflect that there is debate on the interpretation of the prohibition against killing. Almondwine 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, Judaism is not monolithic? We're dealing here (of course) with the classical interpretation of the 10C. Other branches have wildly differing views, not only on the sixth but also the fourth and even the 1st commandment.

Yet again anons from different IP ranges are removing the "innocent" modifier. Judaism, as I stated above, demands executions of those convicted of a capital sin, and allows killing in self-defense. This approach is summarised by the Sefer ha-Chinnuch as "don't kill an innocent person". I will source it in the article to stop this endless discussion. JFW | T@lk 08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly that can't be the only caveat, right? For example, when Moses ordered the killing of all male and non-virgins females of the Midians (numbers 31:40), God certainly approved of that, right? He must have, for He punished the people for not doing so originally (31.16)!! Certainly one could NOT argue the ALL of the males that were killed, a new born infant for example, were “guilty” or somehow a threat, true?

And when 32 of the virgins were “offered as a heave offering” (numbers 31:40). What was their crime? What threat did they pose?

Maybe, when God SPOKE these 10 commandments, he meant to say “thou shalt not kill innocents within your community”. Maybe we should write that in for Him.

Steve kap 10:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian understanding section

I think the "Christian understanding" section needs a little bit of work. It starts off with "Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christianity", which is mostly about the Catholic interpretation, with a reference to the fact that it is the same division used by Lutherans. Later, we have the "Typical Protestant view" section, which is the "Lutheran Decalogue." Now, the commandments discussed in that section are the same division as the Lutheran/Catholic section, just in a slightly different order. So, it would seem that one of two things need to be done:

1. Rename the "Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christianity" section to "Roman Catholic View" since the Lutheran view already has its own section.
2. Merge the "Typical Protestant view" section into the "Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christianity" section.

Basically, it appears that we currently have two sections that are covering the same material, without adding much additional value to the article. I would suggest option 2, since the material is essentially the same and merging them will help reduce the overall article length (which I think is currently an issue). Comments? Suggestions? Kylef81 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess if I had actually read the entire section, I would have seen that the "Typical Protestant view" really was the typical Protestant view, not the Lutheran interpretation/division. The paragraph at the beginning of that section was just out of place, and repeated information from the "Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christianity" section. I went ahead and removed the out of place paragraph and did some other minor editing. Kylef81 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got a bit of a problem with the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the History section:

“According to biblical text...God inscribed them into "table of stones".. With "them" clearly referring to the ten commandments of this article, the so called "ethical' ten commandments. While this is true (that the ethical 10C where written in stone) in the popular understand of the bible, in the written "oral tradition" of the bible (this from JW), and in at least 2 Hollywood movies; the TEXT of the bible clearly reveals the so called "ritual" 10c as what is written on the stones. This is a point I've made several times, pointing to chapter and verse, no need to re-hash it. Could it be reworded to ref to the "traditional understanding"? Or, maybe at least have a ref to the controversy (in the "controversy" section)? I've got no problem with the "ethical" 10c being the subject of the article, but when you ref to the TEXT of the bible, I think, the TEXT needs to read just the way that you're saying it reads.

Steve kap 18:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killing

The source you cited in the article stated nothing on the innocence of man, so I think it best to change the text to reflect “Thou shalt not murder” as - Killing a human being is wrong and should not be done by anyone. The only judge of character can be and should be only God. Runswithspoons 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I deal with your arguments, can you explain which part of the article you are referring to? JFW | T@lk 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some discussion and/or justification of the change from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt not murder", which is visible even in the history of this page.

[edit] Political Ramifications

I believe that this article has completely failed to mention the resulting political ramifications of the Ten Commandments. Someone more qualified than me ought to write something about how the Ten Commandments have influenced Judeo-Christian thought, Western politics, Western philosophy, and the constitutions of numerous countries, including the United Sates, England, France, Australia, and many more. Any comments? -Hairchrm 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You find a reliable source and we can do business. Some scholar must have made an inventory. JFW | T@lk 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murder vs kill

Despite ISBN 0-81465-214-X I think ThaddeusFrye (talk • contribs) was wrong to change "murder" to "kill" here. For one thing, the article opens with the NRSV, which clearly employs "murder". Secondly, a closer look at the Hebrew indicates that R-Tz-Ch generally refers to murder in a criminal sense, while the less powerful H-R-G refers to killing (including execution by the court). From all traditional commentaries and legal codes it is clear that this commandment refers to killing ex judicio, while killing in battle, in self-defense etc is sanctioned. JFW | T@lk 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What about kill innocent captives AFTER a battle, is that sanctioned as well?

Steve kap 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking that? Your question answers itself - if innocent, why would they have to be exectured? But I suspect you have a particular motive for asking that, Steve. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a purpose behind the question. Many of the arguments considering “murder” vs “killing” make a tacit assumption that there is an internal consistency within the bible, and between the bible and religious traditions. I am trying to call that assumption into question. See numbers 31, god orders the murder of all captives, all men, children, every one except non-virgin females (who were kept to be sex slaves and human sacrifices).

With arguments drawn from other parts of the bible and religious traditions set aside, the interpretation should then be the most literal interpretation of the the original word used.

Steve kap 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, Jfdwoff. Still, the 6th commandment has been translated into English as "murder" for only few decades, having been generally (or always?) been rendered as "kill" before then. The Catholic Church continues to use "kill" rather than murder. Essays such as this one, and reviews of Wilma Bailey's book suggest that R-Tz-Ch is not consistently used as a legal term for murder (see Numbers 35:27-30, for e.g.). I think in any case that for the sake of NPOV the article should indicate that the use of "murder" in English translations of the commandments is a recent innovation, and one not accepted by all contemporary translations and congregations. I think that this question is significant enough that a paragraph representing "both sides" should be included in the article. ThaddeusFrye 07:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As it has been already pointed out, the original makes the distiction. Why would someone insist on using a mistranslation? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Num 35:27-30 seems to be an exception. Still, at the moment, we should use the most accepted translations and not let ourselves be swayed by one single author. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that both translations are current, and that there is controversy about them. This fact should appear in the article, with references to both sides of the discussion. Moreover, the article should make clear which translation it is using. As others have said as much, I have introduced a sub-section to the Controversies, but I fear I have left it to someone else to do the references. PJTraill 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PJTraill 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC):

In his edit of 2007-02-22T16:39:00 User:Jfdwolff says "can we end the POV pushing in this section - it is entirely obvious what people are trying to do here", and removes this text:

The supporters of "kill" point to the long tradition of this translation and to their understanding of the Hebrew. In Roman Catholic circles the Vulgate (with "kill") is particularly highly regarded: the editors of the Douay-Rheims Bible quote the 16^th century translators' claim that "the Vulgate is 'more pure than the Hebrew or Greek now extant'" (see http://www.drbo.org/preface.htm)

I do not know what he means by "POV pushing", nor what he thinks I am trying to to. I am in fact trying to present the controversy, which genuinely exists, by summarising (with citations) what participants say. I.e. NPOV reporting of POVs, as proposed in WP:NPOV: "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate.".

In his edit of 2007-02-18T23:50:04 Jfdwolff points out that "mailing lists are not WP:RS" and removes:

Another argument for "kill" is that "You shall not murder" does not in itself specify when killing is murder, making it much less specific than the other commandments. The argument of the ArtScroll tanach translators (discussed at http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v25/mj_v25i85.html) appears to be that the Ten "Commandments" (or dibberot, literally "words" or "utterances") are not so much laws as headings for subsequent mitzvot (specific commandments in the Torah), and are therefore to be framed in general terms.

I take his point about WP:RS, and therefore accepted his edit, though I wondered about restoring it with ^{[citation needed]} instead of the reference.

From the above I gather that Jfdwolff supports "murder" (as do I), but I hope that is not his reason for removing arguments for "kill". I had hoped that supporters of "kill" might improve the arguments I presented. Finally, I believe that the following positions are held by significant participants in the debate and should be presented:

• "The Vulgate is more authoritative", which (surprising as it seems to me) appears to be the RC standpoint, and should be respected. It might, of course be better to discuss this controversy under Vulgate, and just refer to it here.
• "The ten commandments are actually headings rather than self-sufficient commandments", which I find very interesting, and would be glad to see better presented, with a citation.
• "The hebrew 'תרצח' does not always mean 'murder'."
• Various interpretations of the english words "kill" and "murder" which are held to be correct or presumed to be understood.

and these issues might also be worth presenting: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PJTraill (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

• Whether the debate is about God's will or anthropology.
• Specifically Jewish, Christian or confessional viewpoints.

Thanks for reminding me to respond to this, PJTraill. I think we are already devoting a lot of attention to something really minor.

It is obvious from he remainder of the Bible that the 6th commandment cannot give a blanket ban on terminating human life, because judicial killing, killing in self-defense and the extermination of cities full of idolaters (for example) or stated explicitly as being legitimate. (Absolutely! PJTraill) That makes the remainder of the argument rather academic (unless one is a Bible critic, and can twist the Bible's words in such a way as to suggest that the god who banned killing would have objected to all other terminations of human life mandated specifically in the Bible. "תרצח" generally refers (see Sefer ha-Chinnuch here) to the killing of innocent human beings for no reason. The view that the 10C are "subject headings" is very old and dates back to Saadiah Gaon.

What else is there to discuss? JFW | T@lk 12:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PJTraill 13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Jfdwolff. I'll mull that over, I think I feel that the "kill" viewpoint, misguided or not, needs presenting.

[edit] High Profile of Swedenborgianism aka The New Church

As a casual reader I wonder why Swedenborgiansism gets such a high profile in this article. Surely it's not a very high profile religion? Ferg2k 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article at all. This article is supposed to be about mainstream interpretations. Wikipedia policy says that we should not give equal in-depth treatment to a an old religion that contains a billion adherents (i.e. Catholic Christianity) and some new offshoot with a miniscule percentage, i.e. Swedenborgiansism. The huge amount of emphasis on this small, relatively new faith is tantamount to advertising. This in-depth treatment should be removed from here, and placed where it belongs, in the Swedenborgiansism article. Here it should be reduced to a one paragraph summary. Mark3 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mark3 that the Swedenborgianism paragraph will probably need to be removed, unless there are strong arguments for overloading the article like that. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD

Fails WP:LEAD in every way. The lead should include the actual commandments themselves, all ten of them. The lead should be rewritten. I sticking the tag on to seek cooperation before I rewrite it myself. frummer 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These tags deface the article and are not helpful. You have not indicated your actual misgivings about the present intro, bar the fact that you want the whole list included in the intro (with which I disagree). JFW | T@lk 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to register agreement with JFW. Mark3 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This makes three of us. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing obout the things you can't change why not focus on the things you can.? God didn't want us to fight all the time but look at all of us that is what we are doing 90% of the time. and most of is about money and things that inly the people in the government can change, not us, we all think it is our responsibility for evrything that is tragic or dramatic but we are just people with LOTS of flaws and that is the way God wanted it to be.

        207.157.23.67 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)A person who cares

[edit] where are the tablets?

where can we find these important tablets?.86.147.252.83 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They're here. -Lenoxus 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' summary of the commandments

I have seen it said (in Standrechtlich gekreuzigt by ? PJTraill 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC): Weddig Fricke, 3d printing 1987, Mai Verlag, ISBN 3-87936-169-X — found the book but not the reference) that Jesus' summary was not original, but part of Jewish tradition. If so, this should be made clear. PJTraill 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken, not on tablets

The rules God gave Moses on tablets according to the bible were:

34:14  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 
34:15  Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after 
their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
34:16  And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after 
their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
34:17  Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 
34:18  The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread,
 as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
34:19  All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle,
whether ox or sheep, that is male.
34:20  But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not,
then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. 
And none shall appear before me empty.
34:21  Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in 
harvest thou shalt rest.
34:22  And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the 
feast of ingathering at the year's end.         
34:23  Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
34:24  For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man 
desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year. 
34:25  Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of 
the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
34:26  The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
34:27  And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I 
have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

The so called Ten Commandments are SPOKEN as it clearly says: 20:1 "And God spake all these words, saying, [...]". However the special deal God makes with Mose and his people are the written rules. Please read the Bible and verify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.220.35.183 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

JFW, would you like to take this one? I do remember how you explained how what's actually written in the bible doesn't count when enough people disagree with it, but I've rather forgotten how the logic of it goes. Could you remind us?Steve kap 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you are absolutely right. Billions of Jews and Christians have been getting it wrong for 3,300 years. Your views are well known, and your role on Wikipedia seems to be to defend this view alone, judging from your contributions. I will not rehash the many points I've made previously, which you can review above or in the talk page's archives (links above).

You also added an external link today to some website you seem to like. Why is this so important? Does one have to believe in this to be considered a card-carrying atheist? JFW | T@lk 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Bible specialist, but I remember listening to a rabbi on France Culture a long time ago. He explained that Moses was not actually given tablets, but saw letters, and as he was coming down the mountain, the letters disapeared, so he had to write the words down as he remembered them. The rabbi went on explaining that this was a metaphore of the prophetic mediation as a reformulation. I have no idea what was his textual basis. 125.225.71.82 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating, but in the absence of a source it will be impossible to tell whether this is notable. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholars call those ten commandments the ritual decalogue. This article did once mention that, and that there is quite an ambiguity in the phrase "ten commandments", and whether the bible means the ethical decalogue or ritual decalogue by it. But a group of editors, who happen to be noticeably Jewish, reverted, presumably because they have a problem with the concept that the bible can be ambiguous. --User talk:FDuffy 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to atheist site

This section split off the previous by PJTraill 12:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC). The link in question is Which are the Ten Commandments?.

Jeff, I think the link is important because it looks at the 10 commandments from a different perspective. And, one could argue that, because atheists do not have a religious tradition of their own favoring one set/ interpretation over another, that their view would be more neutral, the eye of an outside observer. I know that this is not 100% true, atheists have their world view that color their perception just like everybody else. But, if the views/interpretations for Catholics, Jews, and other Christians are to be represented by links, I think that its OK for atheists to have theirs as well. I don't think that they can be dismissed as a fringe or extreme group anymore. To answer your last question: I have no idea what one would have to believe to be a card carrying atheist. I imagine a broad range of ideas would fill the bill. Steve kap 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that Atheists are entitled to a view, but I dispute the need for that link on this page. If you can provide evidence for a trend in atheist thought that focuses specifically on this issue, then we can renegotiate. Specifically: why would an atheist care which commandment is one of the 10 Commandments? After all, the Bible was not divinely inspired anyhow? The whole thing sounds awfully like a contradiction in terms.

I could go ahead and add the Jewish perspective to splenomegaly. After all, the Talmud states that the spleen is the seat of laughter, and that someone with an enlarged spleen must be a jolly character. But I will not do this because Judaism has no business in the interpretation of medical science. I could provide several other useful examples, but I suspect you get my gist.

Generally, external links are not a vehicle to promote views not already included in the article. Therefore, if there is no grounds to include a whole paragraph about the atheist view of the 10C then an external link is probably not indicated either. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is religious bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. Have you showed a "trend in Catholic thought", or a "trend in Jewish thought" before their links on the view were added? Do people have to have the views shown in THOSE links to be "card carrying Jews" or "card carrying Catholics"??? This might be a subject on a religious issue, but the religions involved don't own this page.. or Wikipedia in general. Atheist have a stake in this subject because the 10 commandments are part of our culture. It is important FOR ALL to discuss their background and authority, credibility, veracity, and consistency. The link expands about an issue in the "Controversy" section that you might remember.

THIS RELIGOUS BIGOTRY WILL NOT STAND! Steve kap 13:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, do I really need to prove that there is a trend in Jewish thought on the Ten Commandments? Talmud Sanhedrin 88a will do, I suppose. I cannot speak for the Catholics, but I can assure you that similar sources will be easily made available.

You have not addressed my point on whether atheists need to have an opinion on this subject at all.

I will forgive you the "bigotry" comment for now, but it's a shame you feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It only gives me the impression that you've run out of rational arguments. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack here, and no forgiveness asked for, thanks anyway. I described your ACTIONS as religious bigotry because they fit the term. And no, I really didn't know there was a “trend” in Jewish thought about this issue, I thought it had been pretty stable for some time. Was “trend” the word you meant? And please, don't accuse me of running out of rational arguments before you respond to those that I present....See?? Above?? That bit about “Atheist have a stake...” Shall I re-type it? OK, I'll break it down:

The 10 C are part of our SHARED CULTURE. Note the movies about the 10 C, the 10 C posted in the Supreme court. The contravercies about the 10 C being posted in courtrooms and state houses. Its NOT the sole property of one world view or another.

Atheism, while arguably not a religion, IS a world view, which has similarities to religion, very unlike your Judaism/medicine example. Further, Atheist DO have views on the 10C, as evidenced my the link that you deleted. How codified are they? Well, thats hard to say. How codified are Catholics views on birth control? But you have to start somewhere, and this seemed to be the most representative link I could find. If you can find a better, please, you are welcome.

The idea that a particular world view, atheism, should be excluded, given the above, doesn't seem justified when other world views are represented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve kap (talk • contribs).

Steve kap, I suggest you petition your representative to remove 10C where you don't think they belong. If you don't like our "SHARED CULTURE," (in all caps) then choose another culture. To present atheist view on a religious topic is to give WP:NPOV#Undue weight. WP is a wrong place for pushing POV. Please find yourself another forum. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think one link is “undue weight”, I think it's more like “minority mention”. As to where I choose to live and what I petition my congressperson for, thanks, but those are issues that I'm in the habit of deciding for myself. Steve kap 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the link in question and it is clear to me that is adds nothing to this article. The link attempts to mock the very idea of the ten commandments and even goes so far as to suggest "10 punishment" instead to be posted in school. While I have absolutely no problem with a critical approach to bible; this link is not that. It does not point out discrepancy in the text in order to understand the text, but only to mock the text as having little value. In fact, at least according to Jewish commentators, exodus 34 doesn't list the 10 commandments at all but tell of the creation of the second tablets and then speaks about other topics. see Ritual Decalogue.Jon513 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mocking? Really? No... Its just criticism, thats all. It questions the origin, the consistency of the 10 C. What part did you think was mocking? I know, there is a social convention that religion should be protected from all criticism. The concept of the sacred. I just don't buy into it. I think worthy ideas should be able to stand up to criticism. Maybe we should think of our reader as adults, let them decide if the critism offered is valide Steve kap 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would not object, moreover, I'd welcome a serious scholarly analysis/criticism from any side, including atheism. That link is childish/extremist mockery that has not place in a serious encyclopedia. Steve kap, so far you've demonstrated your lack of civility. So far I assume good faith, but please don't push it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just disagree with the nature of the sight. It's easy to call ideas that you don't agree with as childish/extremist. There was a time that people who thought that slaves should go free were called extremist As far as civility, was it not you that invited me to choose another culture to live in? I guess I'll excuse that for now, and assume that you're passions got the better of you, but please, don't push it. Steve kap 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 editors resisted your additions. It is you who has problems with the culture. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, so wage your revolution someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I come from, we discuss ideas, we don't count heads. JFW asked if millions of Jews and Christions could be wrong for ~5000 years (about some iterpretation). I'm reminded that millions of people were wrong about the earth being flat for thousands of years. Numbers are not the issue. Three editors can disagree with one editor, and they can talk about ideas, fairness, policy, interpretation.

I looked back on the sight that you found to me mocking. Turns out tha all but a dozen or so words were direct bible quotes. The "10 punishments" that you ref to named chapter and verse (and no suggestion that they be posted, although I have no idea why doing so should give offence). And, there was no editorial comments afterward.. nothing but bible passages. So, I ask again, what part of it did you find to be "mocking"? The different versions, side by side? Was there a derisive word or senence there that I misssed? And please, again, my relationship with the culture that I'm a part of, that's not the issue.Steve kap 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PJTraill 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I have just checked out the link. I do not think that it presents either a significant point of view or useful source materials. Indeed it does not explicitly present any point of view at all. The article already compares versions of the 10C. While (as an almost atheist agnostic) I would be happy to see a section on a significant atheist viewpoint, I am not convinced that one exists, and am convinced that this does not represent it.

Ok, I take your point. What about this link as an alternative: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/10comm.php The group, "Freedom From Religon" foundation might be of a little more note; they are the ones that are in the Suprem Court case now about the "faith based initiatives". They have also battle some of the posting issues, which is specificly ref. in this article. ABC news recognized them as 'the' aethist group, for what thats worth. Also, the link has more to it than the other. Steve kap 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reliable source. I don't have a problem with that link. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything to stop Steve from suggesting that this page is being dominated by religious bigotry. But no more links please. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a agreed to on the basis of treating various ideas and the people that hold those ideas fairly, but I guess it really does amount to the same thing, so.. nice. And glad to see we are on a first name bases. What's your first name, so I can reciprocate? Steve kap 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy in the US

"Secularists and some liberals oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, arguing that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." This appears to have no source and has the author polled all the conservatives to ensure they support placement of the monuments? How about "Secularists and others oppose" or "Some oppose" since we're not sure they're all secularists either are we? I think it's odd to presume that conservatives wouldn't take the first amendment seriously. I know some who do, but that's a strawman argument... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.0.193.220 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Translation specification

Would someone who knows please specify the translation used for the extensive quotation of the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages in this article. There are some wordings that are not without controversy, such as "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord." This is so mild a wording that it might well be a proscription against naming other things "The Lord"; while the actual passage is taken by some to be so strict as to ban almost all uses of it. So, anyway, at least say what transaltion it is.

PJTraill 12:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Hear, hear!

New Revised Standard Version. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it says "the name of [insert translation of YHWH here]", which doesn't translate as "the Lord" (though some people do sometimes use "the Lord" to refer to it). --User talk:FDuffy 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kill vs murder

PJTraill (talk • contribs) has inserted a section link to the "kill vs murder" controversy in the main text of the 10C that we quote. I think this is a bit excessive, and certainly will not do much in stopping "edit wars". (I didn't know there was an edit war.)

As I said above, this wording debate is really academic, knowing that the Bible sanctions killing in various circumstances. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It clearly sanctions genocide, in the case of certain races (particularly Canaanites), so I can't see why it wouldn't sanction something so comparatively mild as killing a single person. On the other hand, scholars believe that the ethical decalogue derives from similar such lists that were around in the region at the time, so the original may very well condemn all killing. What the modern Hebrew means is irrelevant, the Bible wasn't written in modern Hebrew, the spelling may be the same, but meanings change. --User talk:FDuffy 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FDuffy, unless you can prove that Hebrew: "לא תרצח"‎ means something else than "do not murder", you are only discrediting yourself. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically your assumption is that the ancient meaning of the Hebrew term "לא תרצח" is equal to the meaning of the term in modern Hebrew, but this is somewhat flawed. In english, for example, silly originally meant full - this is the reason we have -ly as a suffix; unluckily derives from unluck-silly, etc. Yet this is not what silly means now. The meaning changed to fit a particular interpretation, made at a particular time (silly with alcohol, for example). In old English translations it is rendered kill not murder, based on what scholars thought the word meant then. Its worth noting that the masoretic text is a document dating from after the 7th century CE/AD. --User talk:FDuffy 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew: "לא תרצח"‎ means "do not murder", and if someone insists otherwise without evidence, that makes him look silly indeed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This brainless discussion has been going on for yonkers. It is politically charged - getting the Bible to say something contradictory ("I says don't kill but also wants them to kill idolators, Canaanites etc") simply fans the flames of the so-called "higher criticism". Every so-called source (JED or P) advocates killing in particular circumstances. The whole thing turns into a massive circular argument. I agree with Humus Sapiens that insistence on an alternative translation is misguided at best. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Brainless? I guess these rules about keeping discussions civil and assuming positive intent go only one way. Steve kap 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and accusing other editors of bigotry is civil? My point is that I still haven't heard a single cogent argument in this interminable discussion. So rather than referring to people as brainless, I regard the debate as having no merits. JFW | T@lk 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you were calling the DEBATE brainless, I see then. But wait, debates don't have brains. Only people have brains. Steve kap 10:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in the table

some ones vandalised the section in the table

Which section, in which table? --User talk:FDuffy 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)