Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


This archive was created on 28 August 2006 and includes topics that were more than a couple of months old at the time of archiving or were resolved issues.


Contents

Two Halves

The articles states that the Ten Statements are divided into two halves, the first five dealing with the relationship between God and humanity, and the second dealing with relationships between people, but why is the fifth statement "Honor your father and your mother..." That doesn't seem to deal with God at all. Can someone please clarify this?

Lue3378 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See below at commandment five (under Jewish Interpretation). It explains this. jnothman talk 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish footnotes

Anyone mind putting in the footnotes at the bottom of the jewish section?

Wikipedia:Good article

Is this really a good article?

The criteria are:

  • be well written
  • be factually accurate
  • use a neutral point of view
  • be stable
  • be referenced, and
  • wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it

I couldn't argue any but the last are fulfilled... The references in the article are broad and certainly most of the article was written without any. For style, the article could see a lot of improvement in consistency.

Can we at least make this article a good article, then? Now that it's listed as one?

jnothman talk 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian Stance?

I noticed the following sentence under the section "Public monuments and controversy in the USA": As seen above, any attempt to post the Decalogue on a public building necessarily takes a sectarian stance; Protestants and Roman Catholics number the commandments differently.

Could you maybe link me to a website that verifies that or explains how that's true?

Thanks, EChronicle 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers number the commandments a bit differently (as do the Lutherans, I think, but am not sure), but I don't know precisely how that works. You may want to contact Essjay, who is a scholar of Roman Catholic theology and one of Wikipedia's best editors/administrators/bureaucrats. KHM03 (γραφ) 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... thanks KHMO3 - I appreciate your response. I'll try to get a hold of him. --EChronicle 20:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this senence in the same section: ...statements of monotheism like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"..

Does anyone else see the irony here? Notice the "s" at the end of "gods". If I tell my girlfriend "you shouldn't date any other guys", am I saying no other guys exist? Steve kap 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


10 Commandents on TV

I noticed that yet another made for TV movie is being made called "The Ten Commandments" In the preview, we see Moses coming down from the mountain with 2 stone tablets under his arm. How much do you want to bet that when these are read out, there will be no mention about boiling a calf in its mother milk, or sacrificing the first born, even thu these are 2 of the commandents listed in the ONLY set of commandents ever written in stone by YWHW on the mountain (EX 34) (rememer the those in EX 20 were spoke by YWHW to the people). This same set has been marginalised in Wiki and elswere as the "Ritual Ten Commandents", not the Ten Commandents proper, even thu it is the ONLY called by the bible as "the ten commandments" (if I'm wrong, give me chapter an verse, and I'll take it back!) Self deception is a wonderus thing. Are we part going to be part of it?

SAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.141.210 (talk • contribs)

Give me a day or two (I'm researching it), but I'm pretty sure that you're incorrect. (Also- could you consider gettting an account and signing your name with four tildes ~?) --EChronicle 20:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I've finally found the verse I was looking for (and what do ya know, it was the first verse of Exodus 34???!!!). It's amazing what happens when you leave out something (i.e. Exodus 34:1). The verse says:
1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you [Moses] broke. (www.ibs.org/NIV)

--EChronicle 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote is true, but it doesn't contradict my point, it exactly IS my point! Ex 34.1, good, we are on the same page. Now keep reading thru at least Ex 34.28.......See?

I'd consider getting an account, but don't know how to go about it. Now, make sure you clean up the fat of the feast! And don't go cooking any baby goats the wrong way! ;-).

SAK

SAK, we've been through this a couple of times. Most people disagree with you, which is why the Ritual Decalogue has been "marginalised". This is entirely consistent with the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, which states that minority views should be mentioned but certainly not overemphasised. I think a mention in the article intro is not "marginalising" at all, by the way. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No agrument that most people don't agree with me. And if the Wiki policy is to go with the majority point of view, well thats up to you all. I've got a couple questions, thu:

Look up EX 34.28 in the King James bible, what words are written there? Is it a matter of POV, or simply a matter of pulling up old KJV, flipping to 34.28, and reading? Maybe you don't like King James, fine, pick your favorite bible, same questions.

If the majority of people think that there is a biblical story in which Moses comes down from a moutain with 2 stone tablets, on which the "ethical ten commandments"(ie the ones in EX 20) are written, does that mean such a story really is in the bible? If so, please, tell me where? What chapter, what verses?

Are we not supposed to discuss the merits of various POVs here, in the discussion section, or is this just supposed to be about what should go in the article according to Wiki policy?

SAK

The merits of all the POVs have been discussed here ad nauseam. There was a strong consensus to keep the present version, as most people - when questioned - will say that there are only two sets of the Ten Commandments: in Ex 20 and Deut 5. We've had several editors, starting with Charlie the magician and then Francis Duffy and Kwami, who felt this article should treat the "classical" decalogue and the "Ritual decalogue" on an equal footing. There have been long discussions, now archived, as to whether this was disproportionate.
I don't need the KJV. I can read the original. Goethe was the first one to suggest that there was a set of 10 commandments that predated the "official" ones. I don't disagree that there are people who adhere to this view, but that this is academic view that cannot be falsified and hence not proven as such.
I hesitate to continue this discussion, as I've explained this already in great detail. If you disagree with me, could you state what exactly you'd like to change? JFW | T@lk 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi JFW,

I am sincerely impressed by your ability to read the original text, and I have no doubt that it may give you a better understanding of the text. But this is the English version of the Wikipedia, and we are to cite on reliable, published, publicly available sources, which are plentiful in this case. Wouldn’t your translation, be considered original research?

As to revisions I’d suggest, I’d concede that which version is THE version is a matter of POV, so if the bulk of the text is to ref the “Ethical 10C”, that’s fine, go with the majority, with a minority mention. But I would make a clear distinction between the popular understanding of the text, and what is actually in the canon. Every time the stone tablets of EX 34 are mentioned, for example, it should be made clear that it is in ref to the 10C in EX34, the “Ritual 10C”, UNLESS its clearly in ref to the popular understanding of , and not the written, canon.

As to continuing this discussion, I haven’t read any contradiction of my points, either the questions of fact about what is in the canon, or the question of what is a matter of POV, and what is a matter of fact (or a matter of easily referenced publicly available published works). So, I’m willing to let things stand as it is if you are. SAK

Tonight is the big night, 8pm Central time, ABC. Let's watch and follow along starting at Ex 32 or so, and see what is written those 2nd set of stones vs what's in the bible! SAK

SAK, go to this link and please get an account (lol): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup ... Also, see if this link clears up your questions: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tentab.html ... Hope that helps --65.8.182.209 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WOW!! I looked at the link, and thanks for trying to clear things up BUT.... The article tries to reconcile DT 5 with EX 34 ("..Lets run them in parallel..."), by comparing Dt 5 to EX 20!!!. Talk about bait and switch!! 'I'd like to show you how a Honda is just like a Hummer by comparing it to a Beatle'. ps I promise to get an account by next time. SAK

First of all- that last comment by 65.8.182.209 was by me (EChronicle) - I had just forgotten to login before I posted. Thanks SAK, for going ahead and getting an account!!! :) (It makes it much easier to identify people etc etc) Ummm... sorry about the last link - I don't have time to read all these pages before I give em to you - try this: TheologyWeb... --EChronicle 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi E.,

I read thru some of that link, are you saying that Ex 34, the “Ritual 10 Commandments” (RTC) are modification/enhancements of those in Ex 20 (ETC)? If so, I have no argument (or opinion) about that, but it doesn’t seem address my point…

My point is that the words written on the stone from Ex 34.1 are, (according to the text) found in Ex 34.12-28, the so called RTC, including the “sacrifice/redeem the first born” and “don’t cook a kid…”. And also that Ex 34.28 id’s these as The Ten Commandments, and nobody has ever cited any other place in the old testament where the term “ten commandments” is used.

Notices, I make NO CLAIM about what are THE 10C, or about the traditional understanding of the 10C. Nor do I claim that the RTC are somehow superior to the ETC (Ex. 20). I’m just talking about what is in the text. Please address all complaints to the author (just kidding). SAK

Yet for some reason nobody reads the text the way you are saying. All the traditionalists (who are in the vast majority compared to the academics) believe that when Ex 34 mentions the Ten Commandments it is referring to Ex 20 and not to a list of commandments in that same chapter. I have rephrased the intro to restore balance.
SAK, I urge you to read the exchange above between myself (and many other editors) and Francis Duffy. Also, please peruse WP:NPOVUW. JFW | T@lk 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And I’d like to ref you to the policy about Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

What would you consider to be an authoritative source concerning the text of the bible? A public opinion poll? A scholarly text about the bible? Or the bible itself. I keep asking for chapter and verse, showing me where I’m wrong, what do I get? Nothing but obfuscation and blind leads . This is the post-printing press, post-Gutenberg Bible, post-Reformation, current-Internet era. We can read the bible ourselves.

As to why “nobody agrees with me” (not counting those who have already been shouted down, I presume), I think that’s an interesting question. Why do most people have and understanding of Exodus that doesn’t jib with the text? Could make for a good article.

Also, I think that your reading of NPOV as ‘majority rule, minority mention’ is a bit of a misinterpretation. The logical conclusions should suffice to show this (reductio ad absurdum ): If most people in the USA believe that the Social Security fund is currently running a deficit (they do, and it’s not) is it true? Is it verifiable? Wouldn’t the General Accounting Offices’ numbers be a more authoritative citation? How would one write the article?

I’ve read the discussion. I believe my points are unique. They have not been addressed. I assert my right to expression and respectfully don’t recognize your authority to call the debate over. SAK

  • “All Traditionalists“

Me again JWF. I just re-read a line that you wrote, it took some time to sink in..

You wrote that “… all Traditionalists believe..” and also “Traditionalist make up the vast majority…”.

REALLY! ALL Traditionalist believe that, eh. Every single one. Did you ask each and every one of them? Did they get together and have a conference, and come up with a position statement that all of them signed? Are you sure none of them have changed their minds? Who gets to decide who is a Traditionalist and who isn’t? You? Is it like a Fraternity, with secret handshakes and all? Or is a Traditionalist by (your)definition someone who believes in this time-traveling stone, in which case you are saying exactly nothing. And they far outnumber ‘academics‘? Exactly how many ‘academics’ are they, anyway? Are you sure you counted all of them? Was there a worldwide survey? What are the numbers?

Do you see now the importance of VERIFIABLE? You had me going for a bit, until I saw that word tell-tale word “ALL”. If someone uses the word “ALL” or “Always” to describe human endeavors, opinions, actions, you know they are not getting their “facts” from surveys or studies, but rather from… never mind, you get the point… SAK

I have a fine grasp of Wikipedia policy, thank you. Verifiability and neutrality are key policy. I'm really wondering what exactly you want in this article. You seem to be guided by the absolute truth as uncovered by academicians. That is fine. That is a POV.
However, academicians have no monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible. In fact, their views have a limited audience and these views are not shared with the vast majority. As opposed to Social Security, there is no objective "truth" in the interpretation of the Bible - commentators disagree with each other all the time.
If you'd ask anyone (including the academicians) the meaning of "Ten Commandments" (without a modifier), the vast majority would point at the ones in Ex 20 and Deut 5. This is my point with respect to WP:NPOV. You can't overemphasise the other view just because it appears more "truthful" to you.
Now this: please propose what you would like to change, and we'll see. Have a good look at WP:NPOV, because this is the policy we're discussing here, not WP:V. If you are not satisfied with my replies, consider asking for WP:RFC. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

JFW, Thanks for addressing my points, I think you and I just have an honest disagreement about what is POV, and what can be settle by "cite authoritative sources" (Exodus, I believe, in this case). You hold that what is written in Exodus is a matter of interpretation (I guess, don't want to put words in your mouth), I believe that what is it written is written plainly (although I'd concede that 'meaning' and 'significance' is a matter of interpretation). Give me some time, I'll lay out my propused changes, the flavor of which I've talked about. It will be in ref to what is written in the text, and will try to preserve, with out marginalizing, the popular and scholory understandings. Peace. SAK.

We agree that there are various POVs. What we cannot agree upon is the amount of emphasis to be placed on individual POVs. References are in abundance. I have already seen all the evidence with respect to Ex 34. What I need from you is an explanation why a fringe academic view should be given such prominence vis a vis the well-understood traditionalist POV. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had so hoped that we were getting on the track to a fair, frank debate..

  • You started with “We agree”. Really! I’m I allowed a say in what I agree to and what I don’t?
  • My view is fringe- really! Exactly what statement of mine is fringe? What is the source showing that THAT specific view is the minority? Was there a study? Were the subjects of this "study" allowed to consult a BIBLE, or were they working from memory? Is there in fact any source at all? By referring to my views as "fringe" are you addressing any points? Are you furthering the debate?
  • You've decided that this is a debate about "POV" and not "Verifiability". Really! You seem to have a lot of authority, can I ask the source of that too?
  • What gives you the authority to frame the debate, tell me what I need to provide?
  • I'm still waiting for the source that I asked for last time, showing what ALL traditionalist think, and how they outnumber the academicians. If you don't present it, can we assume that you made this up out of whole clothe?
  • I'd like to have a debate that discusses cited material and cordially discuss deference’s of opinion on the application of Wiki policy. What do you want? Steve kap 10:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any question that the vast majority of people regard the 10C as being what you see on TV. We don't need a reference for that. The academic question is whether the 10C are what a literal reading of the Bible indicates, or how the mishna interprets it. I imagine that if you did a poll you'd find that most academics dismiss both approaches as naive, that rather as a historical document the Bible is a collage of different statements from different times. The question for us is whether an encyclopedia should reflect popular opinion or the academic debate. kwami 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I quit agree with the way you break it down. As to the last question, can it do both? Present the popular understanding and present the debate, giving proper respect to both sides? Present the traditional understaning as such, may give it some primacy (because it seems to be the majority opinion) and present the literal interpretation as a subject of discution? Show respect all around? Steve kap 21:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve kap I’d like to propose, in the intro, that “ … according to the Bible, were written by God and given to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of two stone tablets” be changed to “…according to religious tradition, were written….”.

My objection relates to the two stone tablets, I don’t think there is any Biblical ref to these Ten commandants being written in stone.

Ex 20 has them being spoken to the people. The Stones of Ex 31 are broken, no record of what they said. The stones created in Ex 34.1 (“same as the first”) contain the so-called Ritual Ten Commandants (that has the infamous “..cook a kid in its mothers milk.. “ prohibition),shown in Ex 34.14-28, in a continuous narrative from Ex 34.1. Also note that these are dictated to Moses by God, not written by God as the intro of the article states.

I think that the phrase “..according to the Bible” would justifiably be taken to ref to a literal reading of the Bible. I agree that it may be naive in general to read the bible literally, but many people do. And when one ref to the contents of the bible, as I believe the phrase “according to” does, I think you are forced into a literal reading, because you are making a literal inference. You are saying that its there, not just that most people believe it is there.

I think the phrase “…according to religious tradition” is more accurate, and does not diminishing the statement. Most would say that “religious tradition” includes the canon, and the learned and popular understanding of the canon, which isn’t chopped liver.

What do other people think? Steve kap 04:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your wording. It's accurate yet hopefully won't offend people. kwami 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "according to the Bible" is not the appropriate term here. I agree with Steve's proposal. Still, the intro is correct in the original version - the Bible does state clearly that God gave Ten Commandments, but the question is which ones.

As for marginalising the "ritual decalogue" - initially there was ample support for covering the relevant issues on this page, but they were forked to their own page because there were space issues. Whatever Steve's reasoning, what explains the fact that in Deut 5 only the "ethical decalogue" is listed, and no mention is made of the Ex 34 set with the "kid in mother's milk" quote (which is not "infamous" in any way). JFW | T@lk 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, agreed, which ones AND in what form (written or spoken), that’s what is ambiguous. That they came from God is not (according to the bible).

I think your question about Dt 5 is interesting. I think it might belie an assumption/belief that the Bible is a consistent reflection of reality. It’s a respectable belief, but not one that everyone shares.

Maybe “less familiar” would have been better than “infamous” regarding the “kid”. Steve kap 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Decalogue"

I have not been able to locate the reference to δεκάλογος in the Septuagint. Doc 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Exodus 34:28, Deut 10:4, Barnabas 15:1

Exodus 34:28 καὶ ἠ̃ν ἐκει̃ Μωυση̃ς ἐναντίον κυρίου τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νύκτας ἄρτον οὐ̃κ ἔφαγεν καὶ ὕδωρ οὐκ ἔπιεν καὶ ἔγραψεν τὰ ῥήματα ταυ̃τα ἐπὶ τω̃ν πλακω̃ν τη̃ς διαθήκης τοὺς δέκα λόγους

Deut 10:4 καὶ ἔγραψεν ἐπὶ τὰς πλάκας κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν τὴν πρώτην τοὺς δέκα λόγους οὓς ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμα̃ς ἐν τω̨̃ ὄρει ἐκ μέσου του̃ πυρός καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὰς κύριος ἐμοί

Deut 4:13 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν ὑμι̃ν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτου̃ ἣν ἐνετείλατο ὑμι̃ν ποιει̃ν τὰ δέκα ῥήματα καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ δύο πλάκας λιθίνας

Which Ten Commandment

All,

I've twice added a link that reffered to the contraversy on weither the 10 commandments should be displayed publicly, and which are "The" Ten commandments. Both subjects I feel are relivent and touched on in this article. J Wolff has twice deleted the link. I don't think that simply having a link that expresses a minority opinion counts as "undue weight", and I think suppressing such data violates NPOV. I'm sure J Wolff has his own opinion, what do others think. J Wolff, what is your reasoning?Steve kap 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is just a restatement of the heated views in the debate as to whether the 10C should be displayed publicly. You could use it as a reference for the section in question. That would make it relivent. I'm allergic to POV views being hidden away in the external links section. JFW | T@lk 12:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, will do. Thanks for the explanation.Steve kap 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Persistent anon

These four diffs are the same anon (71.201.215.177), adding the same text, which appears to be original research. I've warned them to refrain from edit warring without discussion, and just thought I'd post here too. If they stop, super; if not, they get a block; if they jump IPs we may have to consider semi-protection. Just a heads-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Between them and the Gods-Ten-Commandments.com folks, I've often considered bringing up the option of protecting this page. [Sorry, that was me.] MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidied up the Jewish interpretation

The "Jewish interpretation" section has become bloated with peripheral material. I have now redone this to reflect Rashi, universally accepted as the most important post-Talmudic commentator who anthologises Talmudic and Midrashic material in his Torah commentary. Some additional views may be notable (e.g. Maimonides on the 10th commandment, on which Rashi is silent). Please offer your views. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Translation

The NIV translates the same Hebrew word as murder for the one instance, but kill in the other instances. The KJV translates the word as kill. I'll cite that large rock we have on display as the reason I made the change. --Elephanthunter 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Hey, I had been placing a link on this page and I noticed it was being deleted for some reason... I wasn't sure why it was being deleted... I was told I should come here to talk about external links.. Shouldn't we have some external links to other sites? Like some sites that want to for example show a lot of scriptures to do with the ten commandments, comparisons of ceremonial law/ordinances or anything related to the ten commandments that could be useful to people... Many people viewing this Wikipedia 10 Commandments page are looking for more information when they come here. Why can't we place some more links for people to view if they'd like?--Alexme 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. What external link were you planning to place? You might also consider creating a wikipedia account, or if you already have, add your signature so we can more easily see what changes you're talking about. Personally, I would like to see more external links. --Elephanthunter 09:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This link is the website i was thinking about adding because it's web site that shows solid facts of comparisons of god's character to the commandments and the ceremonial law compared to the commandments. The web site I have mentioned was made by my dad, there is no advertising, no links and is purely there to share some great information at our expense. So if it can be used that's great. Some other people might know of some other good links too.--Alexme 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me first preface this by saying that I am an evangelical Christian and I agree with the site. With that said, I am not sure it is the best link for this site because we need articles that have a neutral point of view as much as possible. To continue to post the link as it is would be considered "linkspam," which violates our spam policy.
Again with that said, it may be possible to post it as "an example of the view of the Ten Commandments in Christianity." What does everyone else think? MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexme, I've made this abundantly clear on your talkpage. You are inserting a link to a site that does not even explain from which perspective it is preaching. MessengerAtLWU seems to have identified an evangelical Christian perspective, which in itself is not a problem.

But what does that link add to the article? What is it an example of? Or is it your goal to maximise traffic to your site, for which you should not be using Wikipedia under any circumstance. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was placing that link there I didn't know why it was being deleted, I later found out after my dad told me... I later found out why and was told if anything was to be done it should be talked about on this talk page. Getting traffic to our sites does not help us in any way their is no profit or gain to us at all. No advertising and no links. It is completelely at our expense. We have to pay for the domain name and any other expenses. I should've clarified what the link actually was. This site was made by christians so that said you could call it "Ten Commandments - The Christian View" or something like that. There's many options that can be done. This link add's to the article because if any christian is coming here to find some stuff out about the Ten Commandments and they see a link to "Ten Commandments - The Christian View" they might like to find out the difference between The Ceremonial Law and The Commandments and how the Ten Commandments is reflective of God. Everything is based on the bible so all christians should like it if that's what they're looking for. --Alexme 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex, even if you state that this is the Christian view (which we would have guessed), why should we need to include this link? Doesn't the article quite clearly enunciate the Christian view? If it doesn't, what would you like to change? Are you sure your site represents the views of the majority of Christianity? JFW | T@lk

The teaching on our website is based only on the Bible and this is the majority opinion of most mainstream Christian Churches. So yes, it does represent the belief of the majority of Christian Churches. There is however a growing number of Churches that are starting to teach the Ten Commandments are abolished and you can break any commandment you like and still go to heaven. I think it is fair to say most Christians know that is just as much nonsense as the Police saying we can commit what crime we want and not have to go to court.
Just recently the Ten Commandments Day was held... I'm not sure if you heard of it but all the mainstream churches held this to get people to return to the Ten Commandments. Many Churches are now starting to push for the Ten Commandments to be placed back in schools, courts and other public places. Our website has a very comprehensive table showing the differences and the Bible references to the difference between the Ceremonial law and the Ten Commandments. There is nothing on Wikipedia that shows these differences and so this would add valuable info in that area also. Some people are also not aware that Gods character and the Ten Commandments have the same attributes. Our website has a very comprehensive table showing the scriptures that show the Ten Commandments have the same attributes as God’s character. Eg God is love - The law is love, God is Holy - The Law is holy etc. There are people interested to know the information that is displayed on our web page that is not displayed on this Wikipedia page. This would reveal valuable information not mentioned on this Wikipedia page.

It's been a while since anyone has said anything about this... I still think we on Wikipedia can help our users more by placing more links that contribute to this page. Getting a christian perspective like the following link will contribute to any christian looking for information of the Ten Commandments. --Alexme 07:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I have removed this rather speculative piece of work, for which no source seems to be available:

Origins of the law
Some historians [citation needed] have argued that the Ten Commandments originated from ancient Egyptian religion, and postulate that the Biblical Jews borrowed the concept after their Exodus from Egypt. Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead (the Papyrus of Ani) includes a list of things to which a man must swear in order to enter the afterlife. These sworn statements bear a remarkable resemblance to the Ten Commandments in their nature and their phrasing. These statements include "not have I defiled the wife of man," "not have I committed murder," "not have I committed theft," "not have I lied," "not have I cursed god," "not have I borne false witness," and "not have I abandoned my parents." The Book of the Dead has additional requirements, and, of course, does not require worship of YHWH.

Who are these historians? JFW | T@lk 13:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious POV Problems

With lines such as "Typical Protestant view" and entire sections solely based on interpretations, this article feels bias and seems to be very much under-representing a large part of the religious community. Most of it looks like original research to me.

Not too long ago I saw an administrator, Humus, reverse an edit of one of these interpretations. He left a note in the user's talk page (81.96.165.178, but we'll call him Mark) with a monotonous, unspecific warning:

Your edit in Ten Commandments was found unhelpful and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding.

Now, the actual edit spanned one line. The user simply modified the Jewish interpretation from "Killing an innocent human being is a capital sin" to "Killing a human being is a capital sin."

From a third person view, this edit did not look like vandalism. Humus might stop and think that perhaps there are some folks who actually believe Mark's interpretation. One example would be myself, and I am not alone. I'm not really trying to be judgemental of Humus. I am just bringing this up to point out what a bias article this is, and how one's personal beliefs will get in the way of an NPOV representation.

Need more evidence? Look through the history and in this talk page!

--Elephanthunter 07:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

More POV Problems

I removed several lines of text under the "Lutheran and Catholic Understandings" of the first commandment because it did not explain anything about Lutheran and Catholic understandings of the 1st commandment. All it did was give a Catholic apologetic for iconophilia and hagiophilia. A discussion of the first commandment is not the place for that.

--Almondwine 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I made a change in the "Typical Protestant View" section from: "Both omit the commandment against making graven images (the Second Commandment of other Protestant and Orthodox Christians and of Jews) and separate the commandment against coveting (the Tenth Commandment of other Protestant and Orthodox Christians and of Jews) into the Ninth and Tenth commandments." which is incorrect (Catholics and Lutherans do not omit the Orthodox Second Commandment) to: "Both versions include the command against making graven images (the Second Commandment of other Protestant and Orthodox Christians and of Jews) in the First Commandment, and separate the Commandment against coveting (the Tenth Commandment of other Protestant and Orthodox Christians and of Jews) into the Ninth and Tenth Commandments." This is my first edit on Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely happy with the grammar I have used. Please forgive any short-comings, but I saw an error and thought it needed to be fixed.

--Atreyu81 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation

The translation was cumberson, inelligant, full of []'s without explination, and unfamiliar to the great many. I replaced it with the NKJV because it employs the traditonal language in a more modern readability. Lostcaesar 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, no serious theologian or Biblical scholar uses NKJV. I've replaced it with NRSV, the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature standard. I've also removed the itemization, seeing as different religious traditions itemize the actual commandments differently.--Almondwine 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it was proper not to itemize them. I also don't mind the translation you used. However, I think it is irrelevant that "no seriouss or Biblical scholar uses the NKJV". That is because objections to that translation have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments passage. Besides, every time I've seen the ten commandments posted, its writtin in the KJ. Personally, I use neither translation regularly. But it would be impossible to argue that such language is not the most familiar, and therefore relevant. Whatever the case, I didn't change the article, but I do think it would be better with the most familiar text.
I assume that the above comment was made by Lostcaeser... whomever made it, I take your point well. Most theologians do, however, use NRSV in standard practice. I know that Augsburg/Fortress almost requires it, as do AAR/SBL publications, conferences, etc. I think an encyclopedia which is inherently an academic undertaking should ascribe to academic practice. I do think your follow-up changes are good, though, and am happy with the current paragraph.
--Almondwine 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

"Which Ten Commandments" was added under the "controversy" section by our longterm Steve kap (talk · contribs) (SAK). He bases this view on this article on atheists.org. He has been unable to explain whether this view has any currency and why we should devote a whole paragraph to it. I have therefore removed it for now. Here's the diff if you're interested. JFW | T@lk 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we did talk about this, JDW, when I added the link, and you removed it. Adding it to the "Controvery" section was YOUR proposed compromise. And I do NOT agree that this has been "covered adequately", ref to the 1/2 sentance in the intro. I didn't get my info from the link you mentioned, I got it from the bible,note the refs. I ref to bible chapter and verses throughout, I didn't make anything up. Is there anything in the paragraph that is not true or misleading? Can you say the same for the "nature of the stones" section, which uses bible ref's, but out of order and out of context?
If something is factual, not misleading, and IS a controvery, I do not see any justification from removing from a section labeled "Controversy". TO do so whould be, in my opnion, violate NPOV. What say you? Steve kap 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put the section back in (plus a little) because it is important in Biblical interpretation, exegesis, and OT theology. Whenever a reader finds differing accounts of the same thing, it is important from an academic perspective as well as from theological and spiritual perspectives to consider what insight that discrepency affords us. The very fact that there is a discrepency has currency, and Steve kap (talk · contribs) shouldn't have to explain defend "his view" in demonstrating the analytical purchase possessed by the text itself. Or perhaps your problem IS with the text itself? Almondwine 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case it needs a link to Ritual Decalogue. This paragraph is now long enough, and should have a reliable source explaining the background (not an atheism.org URL), perhaps even mentioning the fact that J.W. Goethe was the first to state with some degree of confidence that the Bible may have more than one set of Ten Commandments.
I still have seen no evidence that the view has currency apart from the few editors who have been trying to put this POV into the article (Charlie the Magician, Kwamigami, Francis Duffy, Steve kap). An academic reference? It would make things so much easier. JFW | T@lk 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Which POV am I accused of pushing? That Ex 31,32,34, and exp34.28 say what they say? That the number 34 is bigger (and therefor comes after) the number 20? Is it my POV that Ex 34.28 says what it says? I noticed that you removed any ref to ex 34.28, why?

I noticed that you added some ref to that paragraph, edited it, and fleshed is out, thanks. But I think that you ,at the same time, got rid of the point of the paragraph, that EX 34 is different than Ex 20, and Ex 34 is connected with a continuous narative to the stones. THAT'S what is controvercial. Without that, it has no piont. Think of it, if I am allowed to make the controvery plan, put it out there, it will be so much easier to show the other side, if that is what you intend to do... Steve kap 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing really controversial. This is a difference in interpretations. Can you indicate in which way this is actually controversional, apart from the fact that no traditionalist will ever align himself with the DH view? Until Goethe, nobody considered the 10 commandsments in Ex 34 to form a Decalogue. To interpret Ex 34:28 that way is therefore a POV, inasmuch as that billions of people think otherwise. I have rephrased to paragraph to reflect this unequivocally.
Concerning the title of the paragraph, "which ten commandments" is a rhetorical question which would do fine in a magazine but not in an encyclopedia. At present the paragraph is about the fact that some sources find another decalogue in Ex 34 and call it the Ritual Decalogue. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I get your first point, a difference in interpretation IS a controversy, isn't it? If you say that bible says "X", and I say the bible says "Y", then we disagree, and that’s called a controversy, true? What is the controversy here? I'd say it is what is identified in EX as the ten commandants, and what is written on those stones, according toe EX, and the bible in general. Also, the conflict between the popular understanding and the text of Ex., that's at least a conflict, might be called a controversy, could at least lead to controversy. Academic sources? Well, you mentioned one, Goethe. Can't we use the text of the bible itself? that fact that we are having this debate, doens't that show you that there is a controversy? The idea that no traditionalist would align with this idea concerns me not at all. One could say that no true Creationist would align themself with Evoution. Who cares, whats your point.

Concerning the title, yes, "which ten commandments" is a rhetorical question, which I believe is perfect to introduce a paragraph that discusses which ten commandants (according to EX) are written on the stones, which ones are THE 10 commandments. Rhetorical questions are great ways to present a controversy, the tile "Ritual D." doesn't tell the reader what the controversy is , doesn't say what the paragraph is about, and therefore is a poor title, I believe. But a good sub-title.

I don't understand your statement about Ext 34.28. Are you saying that to quote ext 34.38 is POV ALL BY ITSELF!! If so, that’s a remarkable position. Is there any context that I could mention Ex 34.28? How is excluding a verse of the bible consistent with NPOV? And truth telling in general? Sounds like censorship. Steve kap 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, please stop using offensive edit summaries[1] and stop complaining of "censorship". As an encyclopedia, we are not allowed to take a bird's eye view. If you can prove that the Ritual Decalogue existed prior to Goethe we can amend the text. The fact is, every classical source ignores the Ex 34 list and treats Ex 20/Deut 5 as "the Ten Commandments".
I agree that there is a controversy, but have you looked at Google? Wikipedia is the #1 search result on this subject. A bit strange isn't it? And the controversy is not called "Which Ten Commandments?" - the controversy revolves around whether there was previously another set of Ten Commandments. Very few sources dispute that nowadays, Ten Commandments refers to Ex 20/Deut 5. JFW | T@lk 08:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you were offended, but I find nothing that I wrote that was offensive. I used the word censorship advisedly and deliberately. Now you’re saying that I have to prove that the Ritual Decalogue existed prior to Goethe? Why? You again say that every classical source ignores Ex 34 (accept, as I see in the “Nature of the Stones” section, when it meets their purpose). Again, every Creationist ignores the good evidence of Evolution, one hundred percent of smokers smoke. That’s called tautology. Proves nothing. So you agree there is a controversy, so now it’s presented, what’s the problem? So wiki is the number 1 source for Google search, that’s good, all the more reason to make it accurate, fair, balanced.

I would still like an explanation on why merely quoting Ex 34.28 is POV. Is that your position? Or is your position that it is POV to associate Ex 34.28 with Ex 34.27, 34.27 etc? If so, I’d like you to look up the definition of the word “these” as in “these, the ten commandments”. I’ll give you a hint, it has something to do with proximity. Or do you have a problem with the KJV translation? If you explained your position, it would make it easier to have this discussion.

We often feel bad when our ideas are challenged, but that doesn’t mean our ideas shouldn’t be challenged, or that the person doing the challenging is doing something wrong. Steve kap 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Ten Commandments. Until Goethe, whenever someone mentioned the Ten Commandments, they were referring to Ex 20 and Deut 5. Goethe and Wellhausen introduced the concept of a Ritual Decalogue, so the interpretation of Ex 34:28 is completely new.
Your comparisons with creationism and your patronising talk about ideas being challenged are not helpful. Stick to the issues. If you are unhappy about the present state of the article, feel free to issue a request for comments. I have little doubt that the present version will be preferred by the community. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I’m fairly happy with the state of the article, except maybe the “nature of the stones” section, I think its deliberately misleading, using bible quotes out of context and out of order. But I’ll address that at some other time. And the title of my added “Controversy” section. But I’ll let that go for now.

My reference to Creationist was in response to you attempt at tautology, that’s all. I was clearly giving an example, not changing the subject. Stop using tautology, and I will no longer have a need to explain what it is, and why it’s a poor way to argue.

Back to Ex 34.28, are you saying that, before Goethe, nobody thought 34.28 referred to 34.27, 34.26, etc? Remarkable! Did they have a different version of the bible then? Did the word “these, the ten commandments” have a different meaning then? Please, if you can explain why Ex 34.28 ref to Ex 20 and not ext Ex34.27,26,25,24,23,22, I’d love to hear it. Oh, I know, the traditionalist again, right?

And you say that Goethe’s ideas are “brand new”? The man died over 100 years ago!! Steve kap 15:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What attempt at tautology? This is a fact to support my argumentation, not a logical fallacy. Can you not address my point?
As to your incredulity - according to the Jewish view the Bible has always been accompanied by an oral tradition. I am in no position to defend the interpretation of millions of scholars over the period of 2000 years. Your sarcasm is a bit misplaced, methinks. But then traditionalists are backwards, aren't they? Superstitious illiterate fossils.
And Goethe did indeed die 174 years ago. At the time when he made his pronouncements, they were brand new. Especially considering that the Neanderthal traditionalists had gotten it wrong for 2000 years before him. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi JFW, I've got a brand new car that I could sell you for very cheap.. Well, it WAS brand new when I bought it, 12 years and 120,000 miles ago. But it was brand new then, shouldn't it still count as being brand new?

I'll explain what tautlogy means, and how you engaged in it when I have more time. It has to do with the definition of a traditionalist and the views of a traditionalist being one and the same.

And the oral tradition, thanks, at least that's an answer, I know where your views are coming from. I think it only has tangential relevance to discussion of the written bible, thu, but yes, I agree, it is very relavent to what is and is not considered the 10 commandents. The only thing, you need to ref the oral tradition when that is your source. But an oral tradition is hard to verify, I would think. If there is a confict between the written canon and the oral tradition, it is still a conflict. And if it was discovered 170 years ago or just last week, it's still a conflict.

Did people "get it wrong" for 2000 years? I don't know, the record is incomplete. There aren't any ancient records of people noticing the 2 creation stories, no records that survived anyway, that doen't mean that it never crossed anyone's mind. People who question the prevailing religon of the time are not always treated very well, I think that might have something to do with it. Steve kap 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In Judaism, the "oral tradition" has actually been written since the beginnings of the common era. No single Jewish source treats the list in Ex 34 as Ten Commandments, nor does (to my knowledge) any Christian source. The article states this clearly. It is about what everybody has been calling Ten Commandments for 3300 years or so.
There is no suggestion the record is incomplete - it is a figment of the DH theorists, who keep on inventing more sources to make their theory plausible, yet none of these documents have ever been found. There are much more plausible explanations for the 2 creation stories, yet the DH theorists keep on going on about. And what is the source for your completely out-of-the-blue suggestion that opinions on the Ex 34 list were somehow "suppressed"? JFW | T@lk 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did I get the idea that controversial views on religion could possibly be suppressed? Is that REALLY the question that you want to ask? Maybe I took my experience from the last few months and extrapolated back about 3,000 years!

I don’t know any historian that would claim to have a complete record of almost anything that they’re studying, let alone a complete record of every religious conflict, thought, or idea of the Jewish people for over 3k years!

But, I’m not going to get sucked into this argument too much. The (at least seeming) contradiction between the written canon and the popular view (and, perhaps, the written “oral” tradition that you mentioned) exists right now. I don’t need an ancient source. I don’t need any source for what the bible says other that the bible itself. I’m not doing a lot of interpretation here.

The section “the nature of the stones” is that based on the oral tradition that you mentioned? If so, then that’s how it should be sourced. The way it is now, sourcing Exodus, but out of order, is misleading and a misrepresentation of Exodus as written, I believe. Do you the oral tradition anywhere that I could access on the web? Steve kap 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question re. suppression of views. Your response was a simply ad hominem.
You still don't seem to have grasped my point that this article is about what is regarded as the Ten Commandments by mainstream religion. The Bible states quite clearly "an eye for an eye" (e.g. Ex 21), yet Jewish law holds adamantly that this is not justice and that the Torah obviously refers to a financial compensation based on degree of disability. Therefore, you can not claim that Judaism supports retaliatory justice, because it clearly not so.
The paragraph "nature of the stone tablets" is sourced to Talmud Shabbat 104. Google for it - you will find it. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes (re the "eye for and eye" quote), quite true. I would agree that Jewish tradition and Christian traditions hold that the 10C are what you say, the subject of the article. We agree on that much. The controversy is about what the bible (or at least Ex) says is the ten commandents, and what the bible (or al least Ex) says is written on those stones. In the same way it is clear the Ex 21 says "an eye for an eye", I would content that Ex 34, well, says what it says. Doesn't mean that it is "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" in some universel sence. It just means that that section of the bible identifies the "RTC" as the ten commandents. And that the RTC is what the bible (or at least that section) says is written on those stones. If that confict with tradition, and popular belief, that's fine. It doesn't need to be resolved, or, at least, it is not the function of and encyclopedia to resolve it. It is enough just to present it.

No, not an ad homonym attack. I sited your BEHAVIOR as an example of how ideas get suppressed. Never attacked you personally. Didn’t try to discredit your idea by attacking you.

You referring to the link I brought as “the atheist web site”, THAT’S an ad homonym attack (although subtle). What difference does it make if the web site is Atheist, Buddhist or even if it comes from the devil himself? It’s the ideas that are important not who brings you those ideas. Steve kap 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is the same - for all intents and purposes it is a novel interpretation to say that the 10C on the stones were actually the 10 from Ex 34. But I suspect you knew I was going to say that. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Exodus:

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.'

Webster’s Dictionary:

this

pron. pl. these (thz)

Used to refer to the person or thing present, nearby, or just mentioned: This is my cat. These are my tools. Used to refer to what is about to be said: Now don't laugh when you hear this. Used to refer to the present event, action, or time: said he'd be back before this.

What a lawyer might say:

Res Ipsa Loquitur Steve kap 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently before Goethe they were not very good at their grammar. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that we who do not have a deficiency in grammar would have to read Exodus as saying that the 2nd set of stones contain the tenor of the words found in Ex 34.17-26? (That is, if we are not informed by the Jewish oral tradition). Steve kap 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

American/British English

A recent edit changed the spelling of several English words from the American form to the British form (as mentioned above by Lincher). It was suggested that a poll be taken to determine which form to use, but does Wikipedia have a guide as to how to decide which form to use? I would think this issue would come up pretty often. Kylef81 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found a page that talks about this issue, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. My take on that page is that this article probably should not have been changed, since it was already written using the American form. I think the only reason that would justify the change would be if this topic was specific to a particular country. I think we can agree that that's not the case. So, I'm going to go ahead and change it back to how it was originally written. (Hoping not to offend.) Kylef81 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
After making the changes, I realized that the previous edit that changed American spelling to British was probably an effort to make the article consistent, since there were already some British spellings in the document. I went back and looked at some of the earlier versions of the document and found that most of them used American spelling. So, I think the change back to American spelling is still justified. I'm new here, so hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. Kylef81 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)