Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 History-See Thru Stones 2 Exodus 20:3 (you shall have no other gods before me) 3 commandment one 4 Orthodox Church 5 Ritual Decalogue / Exodus 34 v 28 6 Sprotected 7 Division of the Ten Commandments by religion/denomination 8 Something is wrong with the table 9 Book of the dead 10 LDS and JW views on the Decalogue 11 I have a math question... 12 Confused 13 Islam, point 7 (Quran 17:32) 14 Horeb and Sinai 15 Claim should match the cite 16 Ten commandments, part 2 17 3th/4th commandment 18 2nd/3rd Commandment 19 Ten commandments, part 3

History-See Thru Stones

In the history section, I'm not sure we should state as a historical fact that the stones were see-thru, and yet that they could be read normally from both sides. As far as that goes, can anyone conform that this myth really is part of a religious tradition, I've never heard of it. I suggest just getting rid of it.

Moreover, I wonder if the whole section is misnamed. Seems to me that its presenting religious tradition as history. Maybe rename it? Steve kap 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapien, I concide, the statement is sourced, thats not the issue I think. Are you claiming that it is a historical fact that these stones were see-thru? Because that's what you have the article saying. Even as an article of faith, I'd say its minority POV in the extreme. But, as I said, the section is title "History", not ariticles of faith. Also, I thought we were supposed to discuss before making changes, as I tried to do hear, and was met with no objection. Steve kap 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a minority POV. Orthodox Jews take statements by the Talmud as being historical. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things wrong with your arguement:

1) The fact that certain religous people believe something to be historical doesn't make it historical. I would have thought that went without saying. I suppose that there are those that believe,say, the Noah's Ark story is historical fact, but I wouldn't expect to find it in history book, nor is it presented as historical fact in Wikipedia.

2) The idea that Orthodox Jews believe something doesn't mean that thing is not a minority opinion. I hate to brake it to you, but Jews are not in the majority in the engilish speaking world. They are tiny minortiy outnumber by, for example, by aethists and agnostics in the U.S. Canada, U.K. certainly here in Sweden, world wide, really. And Orthodox, thats only a portion of that small minority.

So, your case is that the see-thru stones are historical because some religous people believe it to be so, and its NOT minority point of view because a minorty holds that belief (a rather small minority at that). Doesn't sound like to strong of a case to me Steve kap 18:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I take exception to the "fact that you cannot understand this" crack. As it happens, I do understand that Orthodox Jews tend to take the Talmud literally. But, not the point at all. I think that you have no idea what I understand and what I don't understand, and you shouldn't presume to know. For example, I could have said "the fact that you don't understand that 3% of a population is not a majority..." but, I woundn't presume in this way. I prefer to think that maybe you forgot, or that you didn't think it thru, or maybe you had a demographic data source that I didn't. The point is that I wound't assume that you didn't know that, say 3% <50%, and I wouldn't chide you on an assumtion that I made and attributed to you. But, hopefully we can put this aside and discuss the issue. Steve kap 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Numerically Orthodox Judaism may be a small group, but its sources are illustrative of the way the Ten Commandments have been understood throughout the centuries. The Talmudic quote serves to illustrate that clearly, in the view of traditional Judaism, there is something supernatural about the Ten Commandments.

Evidently, the quote is not meant to be historical. Whether it is meant to be taken as fact (that some letters were suspended through a miracle) or as a profound metaphor is open to commentary. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Maybe the only problem, then, is the title of the section in general. I'll suggest " Tradional Origin" or maybe"Origin according to Religous Tradition".

Hi, just want to point out that the only evidence the ten commandments ever existed comes from the Bible, a traditional religious account. If one maintains that religious sources are not reliable sources on religious subjects, the logical conclusion is that the article should be deleted. Please refer to our Articles for deletion process. It is no concern of Wikipedia whether editors think a viewpoint is or is not historical, the only concerns are whether the point of view is significant and verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 20:3 (you shall have no other gods before me)

Is the Bible implying that other gods exist? And if it is, shouldn't it be included in the article?--Steven X 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptians would carve an image of each of their gods in stone, house it in an ark and place the ark in a sanctuary. It might be expected that after half a millenia of living in Egypt the Sons of Israel, being well assimilated Egyptians, would treat their god similarly. They carve an image of the written law (the Ten Commandments) in stone, place it in an ark and house it in a sanctuary.

They then make the written law sovereign over the spoken word of the pharoah as personified sun god by saying thou shalt have no other gods before me.(see find law) Rktect 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this explaination is speculative at best. There are several other places in the bible where Yahweh ref. to other gods, I think it shows the changes in the religon from ploythysim to monothysim . I've been leed to believe that the monothyism of the early jewish people was not the "there is only one god" type, but rather, the "of all the gods, we only pray to this one" type. The "half of millenia of living in Egypt" is from religous tradition, no historical evidence for it and there certainly would be if it happened. Here is a ref. http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/PART2/PT2_1B2.HTM Steve kap 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--Steven X 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across this polythesistic jem from the O.T. Genisis:

"..the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children.." Steve kap 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The opening of Genesis is a pantheon of gods and goddesses worshipped by peoples from Mesopotamia to Egypt: Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Light, Darkness etc; usually paired opposites, male and female. The image of Geb and Nut is the Egyptian Version.

Geb and Nut Geb is the Earth, Nut is the water above. Ra the sun is a creature of light and darkness who rises from dawn to a zenith and then sets and goes down into the undrworld to remerge with a new day.

In Genesis we have el Shaddai the lord of the land, most likely Shamsi Adad of Mari. Yahwah is the power of the air very similar to Baal. el Roi is the power of the water in the well Moloch is the power of the fire in the sacrifice of Israel and the burning bush. Abimelech means father or priest of Moloch. Sarai or Sarah is worshipped by some as the written law and so is hagar, the Egyptian hotep or law.

Air, Earth, Fire, Water, in the form we see them in Genesis

One problem is that we don't think of gods plural in the same way people used to. Once you get used to the idea that we continue to have "monotheistic" religions that talk about god and satan, sons of god, mothers and sisters and brothers of gods, god the father, god the son, then we can go on and look at the monotheism of angels, saints, spirits and holy ghosts. In Egypt there were 42 nome gods plus the usual pantheons of foreign gods. Each represented a platonic ideal, such as truth, justice, beauty, wisdom, courage, craftsmanship. The written law fits right in that pantheon of powers. Whats more, the the power of the law gets a consort in Asherah who represents an eros for wisdom on the part of Solomon and the union begins to bring forth the concept of justice.

You can find this concept of sacred law as soverign over the word of men in sharia law (UTC) and in Ma3t Hotep the law of truth. Rktect 19:07, 9 July 2007

I think that people used to think of gods as plural because they had plural gods. I think that it takes some mental gymnastics to think of the various gods that you decribed as one god. Steve kap 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Egypt that the Sons of Israel lived in for almost half a millenia before leaving, there were 42 nome gods plus their spouses or consorts, the foreign gods, attributes or ideals such as truth, beauty, wisdom, the various creator and fertility gods, the gods of war, the goddesses, the Pharoah and all the ancestors, heros, and special anima, bulls, cats, birds, insects etc.

I don't know of any culture that has ever worshipped just one. Akhenatens god was the edge of the sun which had rays; Christians have the father the son and the holy ghost, plus angels, devils, various sacred artifacts, saints, and prophets, Likewise those who worship the prophet or celebrate the buddah or cast the runes. What's unique about the 10 commandments is that as the written law it claims sovreignity over all the other goods, Rktect 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the WP:OR policy prohibits including editors' own research, including editor's personal interpretations of the Bible. A claim that statements in one part of the Bible have some relationship with or shed some light on statements in another part, or that findings from other disciplines or other cultures shed light on Biblical interpretation, are examples of the type of interpretive synthesis which requires attribution to reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right Shirahadasha. The link I added above goes to "Reading the Old Testament" by Barry Bandstra, and he in turn lists his sources (although he is an authority in his own right). He does talk about the ideas of plural gods when the texts where formed, but he doesn't link it specificly to "thou shalt have not other gods". Steve kap 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

commandment one

does not dismiss the existance of other gods. just says have God first. otherwise God would have had Moses write it differently. I thought God knew what he was writing and did not make seemingly incompetant mistakes.

Read the remainder of the Bible. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious where the idea of having a god who is personified as one individual who can make the laws comes from. Isn't the idea of an old guy with a long beard sitting on a throne, really just a reference to the divine rights of kings as in the case of the Egyptian Pharoah?

The god of Baal Zephon for example, has the gentle power of a mild west wind. A Zephyrus god is more useful than a storm god unless perchance you should require the ability to sail east and hadn't yet developed the power to tack into the wind.

Its interesting that we usually see "God" as seated but Moses as standing on his own two feet even if he requires some support from time to time. I think the first time we see Moses seated or established by his supporters is at Horeb where he directs the battle with the Rephidim. Shortly after this it is suggested that perhaps he should appoint some skilled administrators as judges. Rktect 13:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Snappy comeback Dr. JFW. But seems to me that the rest of the bible is just as ambiguity and internally contradictory as the part referred to above. I think these inconsistency, referring to many gods, then one god, follows the general pattern of all religions around the world... getting closer to the true number all the time! Steve kap 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Church

Why is there no Orthodox subsection under 'Christian understanding'? I find it quite odd that a very large Christian Church has been left out of this discussion. Giuseppe86 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a good source, and add it in! Nobody has said that Wikipedia is perfect. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue / Exodus 34 v 28

The King James version of the bible says quite clearly in Exodus 34, verse 28 : "...And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments". Since the previous verses state that they are themselves the covenant, doesn't this give a strong indication that these laws are the ten commandments? Please can someone give an indication as to whether the King James version of the bible is incorrect or whether Wiki is incorrect? 195.153.45.54 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the KJV and Wikipedia are correct. A very long time ago, Jewish Rabbi's concluded that they were supplemental words to the Covenant. Study the references at 613 Mitzvot for that history.jonathon 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter that was much debated here on this page. There are those (count me as one) that say Exodus 34 vs 28 does indeed ref. to the 10 in Ex 34, siting simple rules of grammar. Others say not, siting Jewish oral tradition (and others). I think that you have to remember that wiki, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is not an authority on "what is", just on "what people are thinking". As to the un-named "Jewish Rabbi's" mentioned above, if anyone wants to take THAT as an authority, you're welcome to it. See "Ritual Decolague" (sp?) Steve kap 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve I completely agree with you. Citing random "jewish rabbis" and "tradition" as a source surely violates some rule, I mean, that's just hearsay and completely unverifiable, especially in light of the fact that you have the Bible itself as the primary source in question saying something completely contradictory. Then for them to have the audacity to call "quoting the Bible" as "POV", that's just absurd and remarkably hypocritical! -- itistoday (Talk) 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

JFW, concerning you comment"

"traditionally, those words are seen to be referring to the 10C in Exodus 20 - are you suggesting Goethe was better at reading the Bible than Hebrew-speaking and reading rabbis?)"

I ask you to consider that many of us (me, for one), came up with this idea before we ever heard of Goethe. How do you account for that? I suggest that we all, independendtly, came up with this "unique interpretation" by simply reading. What's your explanation? Steve kap 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but that is not the opinion of ANY of the classical commentators that predate the modern era. It is obvious that Goethe was one of the first who made this observation, and it is obvious that apart from the adherents of the documentary hypothesis, nobody actually regards Ex34 as referring to the commandments preceding it, which happen be 10 in number. To suggest in the intro that all these people are wrong is most definitely a violation of WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course now you are engaging in tutalogy; that is, you define a classical commentators as those that hold your view, then you make a "point" that all classical commentators hold your view. Begging the question, in the classical sence. Bad reasoning. Bad logic.

And no, its not at all obvious that Goethe was the 1st to hold the opposite view. Here is my reasoning: If a random sample of people can read the text, and several of them conclude that the RD is "the ten commandments" AFTER the time of Goethe, than probably about the same portion would do so BEFORE the time of Goethe, all things being equal. Am I wrong?

To SUGGEST that people were wrong in is a violation of NPOV? Really? The mere SUGGESTION violates NPOV? Doesn't leave much room for other views in that case, does it?

Also, I notice that when the Catholic view (of numbing 9 & 10) conflicts with what clearly is in the text, you suggest the Catholic view be religated to a footnote. Do you see the irony? Steve kap 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prohibits including an editor's own interpretation of the Bible in the encyclopedia. Also, it requires opinion-makers to be experts in their subjects. Jewish sources are required for Jewish opinions, Catholic for Catholic, etc. The no original research policy makes what editors think of the subject simply irrelevant. Under Wikipedia policy the opinions of notable Rabbis are reliable sources for Rabbinic Jewish points of view in the same way that the opinions of notable Academics are reliable sources for academic points of view. If you disagree, you are welcome to propose a change in policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve, can you demonstrate with reliable sources that anyone before Goethe ever read the text the way you do?

With regards to the Catholic position, I only proposed to add a footnote explaining why 9 and 10 are inverted. I don't understand your reaction at all. JFW | T@lk 08:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the propoments of the documentary hypothesis, and there are many, would generally say that anyone living in the kindom of Judah, in the time the 2 kindoms were seperated, would read the text the way that I do. Of course, they would also contend the the texts, the 2 10Cs, would have been seperated at that time, part of different traditions. But, not the point, I think. Why must we ignore Goethe and any more recent readings? And the rules of the english language and gammar, for that matter.

BTW, Jeff,if you think that you are going to call me by my first name, and I'm going to call you "Doctor Wolfe", you are very much mistaken. Thats an old trick, designed to put you in a position of authority, and its not going to work. Steve kap 12:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I appriciate your comments, Shirahadsha. The only thing I'd question is what calls for interpretation, and what is simply a matter of reading a text. For example, to say that the first words of Moby Dick are "Call me Ishmeal", that doesn't call for an interpretation, thats just a matter of reading. But to clearifly the meaning of, say E=mc^2, that might take an expert, an interpretation. I think we can argue which side of the line "these, the ten commandments" falls on, people of good will can disagree on that. I think the solution comes in the form of a fair compremise. 129.16.111.205 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Exodus 34:28 mentions "the ten words", but it simply does not say what those words are. Another source is needed to interpret and tell what they are and what other passage describes them. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Also exodus 34:1 say "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break.". A "simple" reading of the verses would conclude that the second tablets contained the same thing as the first, and there is no reason to state them again. Jon513 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe I can find it, must be near Ex 34:28 if memory serves. Oh,, there it is, see Ex 34:27,26,25,24 etc. Do you see that list of impartive statements? Commandments, one might say? Maybe THATS whats being ref to in EX 34:28. Ever notice that, in normal writing, one sentence usually ref to the one preceding it, unless otherwise indicated? Also, note the def of the word "these" as in "these, the 10 commandments". "These" means "that which is nearby, or recently mentioned (check the dictionary)". If I'm doing my math right, I think 34:27,26,25, etc is closer to Ex 34:38 than, say, anything in Ex 20. Words have meaning. Language as gammar. Thats how people general get meaning from writing. Steve kap 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, and it may seem obvious to you, but Wikipedia cannot accept an editor's own interpretation of the Bible. There are reliable sources with a different interpretation. Only the reliably sourced interpretations are permitted by the verification policy. You need to supply sources. Arguments will do no good. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, Shirahadasha. But there are those more scholarly than me that take this position, Goethe, and the proponents of the D.H. It seems to me that almost all we have on this page is religous tradition, maybe its time to add some acedemic interpretation. Up to this point, such ideas have be religated to the "Ritual 10C" page, which still survives, despite the best efforts of some.

Also, I want to re-iterate, I dont' see how a SUGGESTION that a religous traditon be contradicted could violate NPOV. If there is published, scholorly work, that suggests, say, that the RC were the orignal 10C, I don't see how that suggestion should be banned. I think to ban it would violate NPOV. Steve kap 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr kap, where is the actual source that Shirahadasha is asking for? I can provide several to support the generally held assertion that Ex 34:28 refers to the ethical decalogue. In the absence of such a source, I believe we will be going around in circles. At the moment there is no direct evidence that a religious tradition is being contradicted, and it would be WP:NOR to suggest that a Judean in the 2nd Temple period would have read the Bible in such-and-such a way. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's quite common for religious and academic points of view to disagree, and when they do the neutral point of view policy requires including both since both are significant perspectives on religious subjects. It's also common for editors to present their own opinions as scholarship, which is what you seem to be doing here. You're welcome to present an academic point of view. Please supply an academic source. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes. Sources really aren't the issue here. Ritual decalogue cites lots of sources identifying Exodus 34 with an 'alternative' set of ten commandments. A Google search on the phrase throws up reams of links. And Google books likewise.

E.g. R.N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Eerdmans 1995), p. 116 "The arrangement of laws in groups of ten... is not entirely unusual in the Penteteuch... Another series is to be found in Exodus 34:14-26, sometimes referred to as the "Ritual Decalogue" in distinction from the "Ethical Decalogue"; it is called the "ten commandments" in v.28 and was inscribed by Moses at God's dictation on the second set of tablets that replaced the broken ones. The collection in Exodus 34 has some laws in common with the "Ethical Decalogue", but focusses more on cultic matters."

Alternatively, here's the very first sentence of page 1 of David H. Aaron (professor of Bible at H.U.C.), Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue (Continuum, 2006): "What is the purpose of the Decalogue, commonly called the Ten Commandments, and why does the Penteteuch contain three versions (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Exodus 34)?"

There really isn't a problem with sources here.

But it seems to me that this is all already covered with the current sentence,

Some distinguish between this "Ethical Decalogue" and a series of ten commandments in Exodus 34 that are labelled the "Ritual Decalogue".

So I don't understand the fuss here. Why is this text, that we already have, not already entirely adequate? Jheald 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Jheald. I think the fuss was tht Itistodayat wanted to go a bit further, saying that Ex 34:38 identifies the RD as the 10C. And I think that, with the sources you sighted, coupled with, well, common rules of grammar, he's got a good point, although I'd allow for some "weasles words", because peole of good will disagree on this point. You can see the histoy over the last couple days. I think its a very interesting point that the text (at least, to so many not invested in a tradition) says, or sure seems to say, one thing; and the traditions say another, with very little to say about the (appearent) confict. But, as you pointed out, scholars are not silent on this point. I think we should go closer to Itistodayats position, citing E.g. R.N. Whybray, ,that seems to be closest to the point. Steve kap 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm convinced. This page is about the "Ethical Decalogue" -- because that's the set that have gone on to have global moral and ethical significance. I think we already give a good steer that, actually at the level of the text, things maybe more complicated than that, and that that aspect can be found considered in more depth on another page. Myself, I think the intro already achieves that quite well; IMO more text there would unbalance the lead. Sometimes you can make a point as well with fewer words, rather than more. Jheald 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethical decalogue is for people who think that that is what the Ten Commandments refers to. Ritual Decalogue is for those who think that that is what the Ten Commandments refers to. Both articles to point to the other, and state that there are people who think that the other refers to The Ten Commandments. jonathon 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could those who think that The Ten Commandments refers to Exodus 34 please add support, citations, etc to Ritual Decalogue? jonathon 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Jheald has hit the nail on the head. This article is about the Ten Commandments the way most people would refer to as "The Ten Commandments" without a modifier. To give even more airtime to the RD would simply destabilise the article. The intro does mention the RD, which is pretty big considering only very few people aknowledge the possibility that the list in Ex 34 might be more than just a list that happens to contain ten commandments. (PS Steve, my name still isn't Jeff.) JFW | T@lk 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I agree, as far as the intro goes. It should be short, to the point, and I think that fact that it mentions the RD, well, maybe that's enough. I do think there should be room in the bulk of the article about an acidemic interpretation, or an acamademic historisity, and more about Ex 34:28, now that we have sources at our fingertips. But, maybe I'm not the one to add it. BTW, Jeff, if we are to be on a first name basis, you have a couple choices, offer up your 1st name, or answer to Jeff ;-). Steve kap 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already room for the "academic" interpretation, which is under "controversies", see the Ritual Decalogue.

With regards to my name, you could simply stick to "Jfdwolff", and I shall stick with "Steve kap". I can't help the fact that you chose a username with your first name in it. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected

The page is getting its daily vandalism, well-intended but poorly performed "corrections" (usually wrong) and anonymous POV pushers. I've protected it for two weeks now. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Division of the Ten Commandments by religion/denomination

The table seems to have the Catholic version of commandments 9 and 10 wrong. According to the Vatican, [1] these are "9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.82.97 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All very well, but it inverses the flow of the Biblical text. Do you have any other sources, given that the website may be erroneous for some reason or another? If this is indeed the Vatican's order, we may need a to add footnote explaining this. JFW | T@lk 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia [2]: "The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of "Questions of Exodus" ("Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII", Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent....[T]he decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence--the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods."

This is the same order that I learned in parochial schools in the mid-twentieth century. Also see [3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 10 are identified differently by religion and hence the article should reflect each religion's view. One could argue that any indentification of a specific 10 from the text is a feature not of the Bible itself but of commentators and interpreters. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholics tend to be taught that the commandments are in order of importance. Thus coveting goods is less serious than coveting a person, so spouse=9 and goods=10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.49.205 (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the table

The table at the beginning, showing the verses in two books where the commandments appear, does not seem to make sense at the moment. The verse numbers in the top row don't match those below, and all the verses appear in the left column, with none in the right. Thou shalt not allow messed up Wikipedia tables to exist for very long. Lou Sander 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Book of the dead

• Maybe I've missed it, but there seems to be no reference to the Egyptian Book of the Dead - seem by some scholars to be a potential origin for the 10C. Shouldn't we mention this? The article only mentions Biblical origins and goes back no further. The wikipedia page on the BotD afterall says:

"The deceased addresses each of 42 cryptically named gods, in turn, declaring his innocence:[3]

   O Wide-of-stride who comes from On: I have not done evil.
   O Flame-grasper who comes from Kheraha: I have not robbed.
   O Long-nosed who comes from Khmun: I have not coveted.
   O Shadow-eater who comes from the cave: I have not stolen.
   O Savage-faced who comes from Rosetjau: I have not killed people...

The content of some of the statements of denial or the 'negative confession' has led some scholars to hypothesize that they may be the basis for the Biblical Ten Commandments.[4]"

The ref used isn't great, but I've read this theory in many places before and think it deserves inclusion.Malick78 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a link is "see also". If you could provide an academic source that traces the 10C to the list in the BotD, I see no reason why we cannot include this. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If this theory is reliably sourced it should be explained in the article text. If it is not reliably sourced all mention should be removed entirely. In either event it shouldn't remain as a link. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The source in Book of the Dead is clearly not reliable, tagged in that article. Am removing link here unless a reliable source is produced.

Chapter 125 of The Egyptian Book of the Dead and The Teachings of Amenomope have parallels to the Ten Commandments. (Werner Keller The Bible as History 1980. Chapter 12.) He also mentions some Assyrian parallels.jonathon (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Werner Keller was a German journalist, neither an academic figure nor a religious one. The book he published was popular, but I'm not sure this type of opinion represents a reliable source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS and JW views on the Decalogue

I removed the sections regarding how the LDS and JW organizations view the Ten Commandments - in addition to the feeling that the views of two small groups who have had little to no historical influence on widespread cultural attitudes, or the laws and policies of nations in regards to ethics stemming from the Decalogue - as Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism have over several centuries - have no place in an article about it, the LDS section in particular ended with veiled proselytizing. The information in those two sections belongs in the more specific articles regarding the individual Mormon and Jehova's Wittness faiths, not in an article discussing the origin and historical significance of the Ten Commandments. If this article were allowed to list the individual takes of every religious denomination on all ten or so commandments, it would become bloated with extraneous information, especially when the various demoninations' interpretations do not differ significantly enough from each other to warrant individual mention. Again, specific information of this nature belongs with articles having to do with the denominations in question. NotPotable (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for pointing this out. I too agree that we should limit ourselves to the larger streams of thought. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If LDS had a distinctive interpretation (and it was reliably sourced) it would be a different matter. However, the content in question seemed to be very generic and didn't seem to suggest a view of the 10 commandments different from what a sermon on the subject in other denominations might contain. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a math question...

How is it that an article titled "The TEN Commandments" contains lists of rules that far exceed this number? Just sayin'.Ifnkovhg 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

if you are "Just sayin'" I would recommend "Just sayin'" on a forum better suited to general discussion - talk pages are to improve the article. If you want an answer, read the third paragraph of the introduction. If you think that the third paragraph is unclear, or does not address you question you can suggest a better way to write the article. Jon513 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think if someone has an idea, even if its not completly researched, even if he's not ready to make an edit, he should feel free to express it. I might lead to a useful edit, or to a better understanding. I don't like comments that shut people out. Steve kap (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's based on grouping, in paragraph form. Each groupings of instructions is one commandment. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Reading Exodus has left me confused. According to 34:28 "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments". What was written on the first tablets are not the commandments at all but "the word of God", it is clear (because God says so) the ten commandments are the words of the covenant starting at 34:10 to 34:26 that are written on the second set of tablets which are not the same rules written on the first tablets (which is what the artical says are the commandments). Wayne (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the introduction. Jon513 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one who is confused. I ran across this when I 1st read this as a child. Several other readers have independently come up with simialir thoughts as yours. But, apparently, saying any more about this would be considered "original research". "Research", in this case, is defined much like what is normally refered to as "reading". Steve kap (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Steve. That paragraph seems a little ambiguous (and short) for what seems a major point. The point I'm making (from how it reads) is that what we call the ten commandments are so called by convention not fact. The true ten commandments are the ritual decologue. This distinction is important because God himself says the ritual decologue are THE ten commandments. In Biblical teachings to laymen this may be a minor point but in an encyclopaedia it should be made very clear. Wayne (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 have always been labeled the Ten Commandments but by Judaism and Christianity. This article deals with those verse which are commonly called "the Ten Commandments". It is not an article on the words "עשרת הדברים" and which verse it refers to. Jon513 (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon, I'm not understanding your 1st sentence, just don't know what is meant. As to the rest, true, the

article is not about this subject, but I think WLRoss is suggesting that it should be, or at least

it should address it, and more fully that it has been. I think so too.

But, just remembered, there is the paragraph in "contrveries". Maybe thats enough, or maybe it

needs to be more promenent or labeled better, "Which Ten Commandments" for example

Steve kap (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clearification Jon. But, thats just it, really. Exodus 34:28 sure seems to ref to Ex 34:01 thru Ex 34:27, the ritual 10C, completly different than the Deuteronomy. Thats just from basic rules of gammar, and keeping things in context. Of course, if you allow one to cut one sentence from one chapter and tie it up with a section from another, well, you could get any text to say anything. Not trying to get the argument going again, just making it clear whatthe argument/positions are. I understand that the religous traditions say something different. Steve kap (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I should have proof read my statement - wrote it when I was in a rush. Jon513 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve_kap, we have gone over this argument so many times. Indeed, a literal meaning of Exodus 34 would indicate that what Moses wrote on the second set of stone tablets was a group of commandments including redeeming the firstborn and keeping the Jewish holidays of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. However, every single traditional post-Biblical source up to the modern times totally ignores this, probably because Judaism has an oral tradition on how to interpret the Bible. For instance, there is no historical evidence that "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 22) was ever interpreted to mean that one should compensate for injury by inflicting the same injury on the perpetrator; if anyone practiced law like that is was the followers of the Hammurabi Codex. Instead, Jewish oral law has always maintained that "an eye for an eye" refers to the monetary/occupational/actuarial value of an eye, and takes the Biblical text to refer to a monetary penalty.

The article already makes very generous allowance for the so-called "Ritual Decalogue" (in the intro no less!), primarily because certain academics and observant people like yourself (and Charlie Turek and Wayne) who have noticed that the phrase "ten commandments" is placed rather conveniently in proximity of the ten laws in Exodus 34 I mentioned at the beginning.

Wikipedia's naming conventions demand that articles are structured around the common occurrence of a term. Hence, when you ask a random person what the "Ten Commandments" are, this person may not remember all of them but certainly "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". The same person would give you a blank stare if you told them that the ten commandments included the need to redeem the firstborn and keep the three pilgrimage festivals.

Can you agree that this is logical, and can we agree that we have achieved consensus? JFW | T@lk 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mostly agree with what you're saying, and I note that I was just responding to Waynes question. I guess I'd like to see the section "Ritual Dec.." renamed something else, to make it more clear that it addresses this contravery. Seems like ever couple of months someone comes up with the same question as Wayne, and they don't realize that its been addressed. If you ask the avarage guy on the street "whats the Ritual Decaolog" you'll get the same "huu??", so they will skip over the section, without reading it. And to me its very important, central (I know, but not to everone ;-) )

I think its important that we remain vigalent. There are ongoing attempts to attach statements like "according to the bible" to statements concerning which are the 10C, what is written on the stones, etc, and I think you'd agree that these most be resisted.

Also, I'd more academic view of the subject as a whole. Seems like theres a trend for every religous group to want to add there take, so that there not "left out", but not much room for what scholors think of, say, the origin, the similaities to other ancient code, the impanct of the 10C on the law now, etc. But, I'm not the one to do it, don't have the background. Steve kap (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you've explained that the Jewish tradition is that the biblical text is interpreted by a religous tradition (say, the Jewish oral tradition). But understand that there is a protestent tradition, starting maybe with Martin Luther, that holds the the texts is available to everyone, thats in not need or even harmful to have an authority inturpret the text for an individual. Protestents are huge in number, and have the same seperatation from the writting of the texts, both in time and generations of believers, as the Jews, who are a strickingly small minory of those that hold these texts sacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone could present the academic view in a reliable fashion (rather than to push some oddball POV) I would support this. I agree with you that we need to be careful about attribution. I'm not sure if you're correct about Luther, and I note that the Jewish view - usually embodied in Talmudic and Midrashic sources - has often been taken over by Christian authorities, including the Protestants. I don't think this article only or disproportionally represents the Jewish POV. What is your point exactly? JFW | T@lk 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was in responce to your point, "probably because Judaism has an oral tradition on how to interpret the Bible". I was saying that the Jews tradition is not the only one, and is in fact a small minority of those that take the same text as holey. There is a tradition that everyone should read the "bible" for themselves, and that an authority doing the intredation would be a corrupting influence. This stared with Martin Luther, his push back from the Romenan church. I think I said all this orginally, but I'm glad to clearify. Of course it goes without saying that we don't want an "odd ball POV". Is there a particular POV that you think is "odd ball"? Maybe terms like "odd ball" aren't so helpful.Steve kap (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve I'm not so clear on what you are saying. You seem to be saying

• Martin Luther said that every individual should interpret the Bible themselves
• Therefore every individual's interpretation is notable.

Which would obviously contain vast amount of "odd ball" theories. Jon513 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm think we might be off on a tangent here. No, I'm not claiming that every view is notable. My comment, in responce to JWF pointing out that the Jews tradtion is that the bible be interpreted in light of a (written !!) oral tradition. My point was that this is a different tradition, that the text stands by itself, that it communicates to individuals directly, without the intecetion of a church. You have a point, not every such interpretation would be notable. The "therefore every individuals interpretation is notable", I never made that claim. And, as i've said earlier, of course, we don't want "odd ball" theories. One can debate if the interpetation of Goethe (which several of us came up with independetly, before we ever heard of the man) is notable. One can debate if the history that scholars, advicates of the DH are notable. But it doesn't further the descution to predjudice the discution with terms like "odd ball". Steve kap (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change in the article? Jon513 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, why not just read what I wrote. I was responding to a question by JFW, not making specfic recommendation for a change. As I've written, and you might have read, there are problably more qualified people than me to make the type of changes that would address my concerns. He asked, I answered. Steve kap (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Until the "Ritual Decalogue" theorists came about, every Christian group (even Luther's followers) were of the opinion that "Ten Commandments" refers to Ex 20 and Deut 5. They simply took over the Jewish interpretation, so your comments relegating the "mainstream interpretation" as marginal are irrelevant.

I think this argument is going around in circles. We have already made substatial concessions about mentioning the Ritual Decalogue, and I think we have achieved reasonable balance. While all of us are convinced we are correct, WP:TRUTH applies. JFW | T@lk 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

JFW, you recently ref to ideas that the RD is "the ten commandents" as "novel". I don't think thats true. Ref to the RD artile discussion page, section "other ref". There several ref's to the RD as an alternative, possibly older, decaloge. The idea may or may not not be widely accepted, but its being dicussed in academic cirlces, and has been for years, so its not "novel". Steve kap (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that according to the DH the RD historically predates the ED by several hundred years. But the traditional interpretation, which is still favoured by most interpretations (academics do not have the final word) predates the DH by 3000 years. How many times do I need to explain this? JFW | T@lk 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In responce to "Until the "Ritual Decalogue" theorists came about, every Christian group (even Luther's followers) were of the opinion that "Ten Commandments" (as far as we know!!) refers to Ex 20 and Deut " JfW, you are right, we are going in circles. You've used this line of reasoning before, it was bad then, and its still bad. The point is, said theorisits DID come along. And they studied, and they wrote books, and they became notable. You logic is akin to "I never lost at black jack (as far as I remember) unitll the time I did lose, therefore, I have never lost a black jack". Or "everone agrees with me (as far as I know), except people that don't, therefore everyone agrees with me". Bad logic. Steve kap (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my post below where I compare wikipedia to other encyclopedias? Jon513 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam, point 7 (Quran 17:32)

I would like to suggest revision for the item no 7 of Ten Commandments according to Islam. The translation of the Quran Chapter 17 Verse 32 should be:

"And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily it is a great sin and an evil way."

The word "unlawful sex" in the verse does not refer only to adultery, but it also include fornication. Unlawful sex is not only prohibited for married people (adultery) but also for unmarried people (fornication). I think this is also in agreement with other religions. This is need to be emphasized as the current society tends to become more and more permisive regarding this issue, whereas the Words of God is consistent and never change. Diesel09 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Horeb and Sinai

I have been taken to task for trying to keep the distinction clear between Horeb and Sinai. My critic said

"On Ten Commandments you have been making edits to the effect that Sinai and Horeb are different mountains. This is in complete contrast with generally accepted interpretations, according to which these are two names for the same mountain. I think it would be better if you'd discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments first. There may be a problem with emphasis that we need to address. For one thing: which sources can you provide that Horeb and Sinai are different mountains? JFW | T@lk 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"

In my edits I have taken great pains to word things in a way that keeps the relative identities of Horeb and Sinai an open question. I don't know that they are different, and I'm not trying to assert that. All I know is that there are two different names. Where there are two different names the default assumption must be that they may refer to two different entities, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All I'm saying is that where the bible says "Horeb" we should say "Horeb", and where the bible says "Sinai", we shold say "Sinai". We can add the statement that almost everybody thinks they are two names for the same place, as often as you like. But we must allow those who might wish to question that, however few in number, to see clearly what is said, rather than imposing anyone's interpretation.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just been reading the Cheyne and Black "Encyclopaedia Biblica", which has a massive article on "Sinai and Horeb", which you can read at http://www.case.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/encyl_biblica_q-z/sin-sodom_and_gomorrah.pdf What this makes completely clear is that respectable scholars have held a variety of opinions on the relationship between Sinai and Horeb, and certainly some of them have expressed doubts as to their identity. This is all I want to establish: the presence of doubt and dispute. Where there is doubt and dispute, we should word articles in a way that presents the facts accurately, while keeping the possibility of different interpretations open.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, here's your "critic" again. Thanks for providing some sources; the Bible frequently uses multiple names for the same person and the same place. The Talmud (Shabbat 89a) states that the Sinai desert had five different names, all with their respective meanings.

I agree that in the interest of NPOV we need to mention both views, but I'm not sure if it is of enormous relevance to the Ten Commandments themselves. I think we should ask other contributors for their opinions as well, given that I was the one who originally queried the relevance of your addition. JFW | T@lk 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. But I'd like to make it clear to those other contributors that all I wanted to do was to replace "given to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of two stone tablets" with "given to Moses on Mount Sinai (according to Exodus 20:1–17) or Mount Horeb (according to Deuteronomy 5:2–21) in the form of two stone tablets". That's all.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, please, just read what I wrote above, in reponce to JFW. Why make me write it again in different words. Maybe I'm not the one to make the changes, as I've said, but he asked, and I answered. Steve kap (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this comment was meant to be in a different section. I am satisfied with the solution Samuel has now offered. JFW | T@lk 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The link in the article is to Biblical Mount Sinai (which explains the debate about how "Horeb" relates) not to Mount Sinai. I think that the previous version is preferable, but I don't care to belabor the point. Jon513 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Claim should match the cite

On my talk page, Jdwolff wrote:

I have again removed your change to Ten Commandments. If you read the discussion on the talkpage between myself (and various others) and Steve kap (talk · contribs) you will immediately appreciate that there is substantial controversy about this. As far as all the mainstream interpretations go, the words "Ten Commandments" refer to what was written on the tablets, and that these are identical with what is listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

I think a major problem is that some editors believe that the "Ritual Decalogue" theory is WP:TRUTH. Whatever it is, we cannot escape the reality that this theory is not widely accepted and therefore should not be presented as such. Please join in the discussion on Talk:Ten Commandments if you have any further insights.JFW | T@lk 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you simply skimmed my edit and thought it was somehow the same issue as you were discussing before? Your edit summaries are rather cryptic, and what little meaning I can glean doesn't make sense. The claim that the Bible uses a term translated as "ten" is supported by a citation of Exodus 34. Thus, it should be made clear in the article that the quoted section is in Exodus 34. The current version of the article says "However, the Bible itself assigns the count of 'ten' to the list, using the Hebrew phrase ʻaseret had'varim". To what does "the list" refer? Ex 20? If so, you need to provide a cite for that claim. The currect cite is to Ex 34, not Ex 20. Therefore, either you should find a cite for Ex 20 using the phrase "ʻaseret had'varim", or the article should clearly state that "the list" is Ex 34. Your edit summary saying that "suggesting that the 10 mitzvot in Ex 34 are 'The Ten Commandments' is a novel interpretation not widely accepted" is bizarre. The list in Ex 34 is referred to as The Ten Commandments. No other list is explicitly so described by the Bible. That's not a "interpretation", that is an outright fact.

The only way this issue could be one of "interpretation" is if we are talking about what "should" be the 10CC or what are the "real" 10CC. But my edit doesn't address that. Merely because a fact supports an interpretation, that does not turn that fact into an interpretation.Heqwm (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What your edit seems to suggest is that the words "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 refer to ten commandments in that chapter of Exodus. That is, according to most traditional interpretations, incorrect. It refers to whatever was written on the tablets of stone, which is the list of pronouncements made in Exodus 20 (unless you subscribe to the "ritual decalogue" theory).

You are taking the same line as Steve, Charlie Turek and a few others in taking the RD interpretation at face value. I urge you read my discussions with Steve above before calling my statements "bizarre" again. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "the RD interpretation" is. Wiki policies demands that we take the Bible at face value. If the Bible makes vague statements of some "ten" things, and Christians believe that OF COURSE those statements refer to Ex 20, we cannot report that as fact simply because "everyone agrees that's what it means". Wikipedia is for reporting facts, not for reporting widely held opinions as fact. The previous version implied that the Bible used the phrase in Ex 20, which is false. I simply corrected a misleading statement. The fact is that the phrase is from Ex 34. If readers think that suggests that it refers to the Ex 34 list, so be it. We shouldn't engage is misrepresentations simply to avoid suggesting a conclusion that is "incorrect" according to "traditional" interpretations. I am not Steve or Charlie Turek, and the fact that you are conflating us is the cause of your comments being so bizarre.Heqwm (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is engaging in misrepresentations. If you still have not read the above discussion with Steve kap, please do it now. You are simply going through the motions that numerous other editors (not just Steve and Charlie but also Francis Duffy) have gone through before.

I can think of numerous other examples where phrases from one chapter in the Bible are used to inform the interpretation of another; this is not enough of an exception to make such an enormous fuss, in the introduction of the article no less.

Exodus 34:1 says: "The LORD said to Moses, "Cut two stone tablets like the former, that I may write on them the commandments which were on the former tablets that you broke." I think few people dispute the fact that the first set of tablets contained the Ethical Decalogue. The chapter then introduces a number of commandments (most of which had already been given earlier) and then concludes in 34:28 "[...] he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Now based on 34:1 he wrote on these tablets whatever had been written on the first set. Whatever is mentioned between 34:1 and 34:28 is important (e.g. the "Thirteen Attributes of Mercy") but nowhere does it suggest that what was written on the second set of tablets was different from the first set.

Wiki policies don't demand at all that "we take the Bible at face value"; what policy are you basing your statements on? What we are expected to do is remain neutral, balanced, and avoid working our own interpretations into the content. Could I ask you not to edit the page further until we have come to an agreement? JFW | T@lk 08:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"The LORD said to Moses, "Cut two stone tablets like the former, that I may write on them the commandments which were on the former tablets that you broke." So who's writing the commandments? God.

"And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words." Who's writing the covenant? Moses.

Sure, you can present an exegesis that results in the conclusion that they are the same. But the plain text of the Bible does not clearly establish that they are the same. That's what I mean by taking the Bible at face value. Exegesis should not be presented as fact. This is an encyclopedia of facts, not of intrepretation. Clearly, you are the one insisting on not being neutral, writing that this is the "correct" interpretation and reverting my edit which do not, as you imply, assert a different interpretation, but merely point out that the Bible is not clear on this matter. Your edits are based entirely on what YOU SAY the Bible means, not what the Bible actually says. You're in violation of NPOV no matter what, but unless you can present a reputable source giving your interpretation, you're also in violation of NOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to not comprehend what "plain meaning" means. If you can present a direct quote that says exactly what you say it says, that's plain meaning. The moment you have to resort to a discussion, no matter how convincing you think it is, rather than just presenting the text, that's exegesis.

Furthermore, a fatal flaw in your argument is that it is based on the presumption the Bible is logical, a presumtpion which obviously is not valid.Heqwm (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your POV that the Bible is not logical. It is your presumption that Moses would write someone else on the second set of tablets that wasn't on the first set. The discrepancy between God vs Moses doing the writing does not automatically suggest that the text was different. That is what I mean by "plain meaning". Try not to be rude - my comprehension is fine.

This is an encyclopedia, which means it represents all viewpoints proportionally. You can accuse me of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations all you like, but I have advanced a number of arguments - based on 3000 years of what you call "erroneous" interpretations - that you have not actually disproven.

I asked you not to make any more edits to the article, especially when they violate WP:POINT, until we have come to an agreement. I really doubt we will come to an agreement here, so I have asked contributors from WikiProject Judaism to offer their opinion. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm, as I am sure you know Goethe, in his "Zwo Fragen" (1773), was the first modern scholar to suggest that Exodus 34 contains a Decalogue. Since that time the idea of a "ritual Decalogue" has been completely rejected by both Christian and Jewish religious authorities and debated among bible scholars. Until Goethe it was universally held that the ten commandments referred to Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21.

Now that being the case we have a question on how to deal with that in the article. As Wikipedia strives to a respectable encyclopedia we often look to other respectable encyclopedia to see what they did. I have found the Encyclopedia Britannica Article and the Jewish Encyclopedia article (if you have other links to other encyclopedias we can look that them too). In both cases they explicitly state that Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 are the "ten commandments" without reservation and cite Exodus 34:28 as a source (Briatannica: "another name for the biblical Ten Commandments, in Hebrew the Ten Words (Deut. iv. 13, x. 4; Ex. xxxiv. 28)," Jewish Encyclopedia: "corresponding to the Biblical עשרת הדברים (Ex. xxxiv. 28; Deut. x. 4; compare Josephus, "Ant." iii. 5, § 3)"..."the Decalogue is given in the Pentateuch in two versions (Ex. xx. 2-17 and Deut. v. 6-18)".) Also in both cases the "ritual Decalogue" theory is not mentioned at all until the end (in the case of Britannica) or near the end (Jewish Encyclopedia).

Wikipedia on the other hand gives a full paragraph in the introduction about it, placing this information much more than prominently than either Britannica or the Jewish Encyclopedia. Another major difference is that Wikipedia has a full article on Ritual Decalogue while the other encyclopedias only give it a section in "Ten Commandments". Jon513 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, and in case you want to look it up, the full title of Goethe's 1773 pamphlet mentioned above was "Zwo wichtige bisher unerörterte biblische Fragen".SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JFW's statements are in italics below:

It is your POV that the Bible is not logical. No, it is a plain fact.

It is your presumption that Moses would write someone else on the second set of tablets that wasn't on the first set. No, it's not. Disputing an assertion DOES NOT CONSTITUTE presuming the reverse. I have attempted to explain this to you again and again, and you are either unable or unwilling to grasp this simple concept.

The discrepancy between God vs Moses doing the writing does not automatically suggest that the text was different. I never said that it does. It does, however, destroy your argument, because clearly the two passages don't refer to the same act of writing.

That is what I mean by "plain meaning". Let us be clear here. You just asserted that that which you claim is my position (which, by the way, is not my position) has not been proven, and then you declare that that is what you mean by "plain meaning". In other words, you just admitted that your position is based entirely on argument from ignorance: your intepretation is not proven to be incorrect, therefore it is the "plain meaning".

Try not to be rude - my comprehension is fine. No, clearly it's not. And trying to pass your intepretation off as "plain reading" is rude.

You can accuse me of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations all you like, but I have advanced a number of arguments - based on 3000 years of what you call "erroneous" interpretations - that you have not actually disproven. No, y ou haven't advanced a number of arguments. You have advanced one arguments, which I have shown to invalid. And as I said above, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove your position, I but on you to prove it. And as I have already pointed out, even if you WERE to present a convincing arugment for your argument, that would not address the NPOV or NOR issues. Finally, I never said "erroneous", and I don't appreciate your misrepresenting my position.

I asked you not to make any more edits to the article, especially when they violate WP:POINT You were already in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and now you're in flagrant violation of WP:AGFHeqwm (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fisking is an entirely unhelpful way of conducting a discussion. You are simply wrong that it is "rude" to "pass off my interpretation as 'plain meaning'." Even if you disagree with my assertion, it is not incivil. There is no point discussing if you are going to take every one of my statements as a personal attack.

Clearly we disagree on whether the Bible is logical or not. This is therefore a matter of opinion and not fact. Still, when the Bible says that there was particular text on the tablets it would be odd that it would "change its mind" without explicitly saying so. Your evidence for a change in text is based on an assumption that I submit is more complicated than the "traditionalist view"; Occam's razor needs to be applied.

Jon513 provided some useful sources about how through the centuries interpretations have favoured the view that Ex 34:1 and 34:28 are referring to the Ethical Decalogue. I don't think there's an awful lot left to be discussed. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm, would you be satisfied if the footnote also contains reference to some of the many secondary sources that interpret exodus 34:28 as referring to the "ethical Decalogue"? Jon513 (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's well established that in Wikipedia religion articles, Wikipedia can't accept an editors own personal interpretation of the Bible on a disputed matter. Since there are reliable sources disputing the matter, Wikipedia simply can't accept an editor's statement about what the Bible says or means. The Bible is a complex document that's been subjected to many interpretations, our own don't matter, it doesn't matter if we think particular interpretations are more logical than others. This is not a forum to prove or disprove editors favored arguments, and if there are any more requests for proof or disproof I'm afraid I'm going to have to delete this entire discussion as off-topic. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Sorry. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

JFW, I have tried to discuss this without quoting you, and it didn't seem to work. I don't see what the big objection to Fisking is. On the contrary, it seems to me that responding to direct quotes as I have done is quite a bit more productive than responding to strawmen as you have. You seem to have a completely different bar for civility depending on who the recipient is. You took great umbrage at being told that you were using a term incorrectly, but when I pointed out that it's rude to say that your interpretation is obviously right, and anyone with a different view is flatly wrong, you went all hissy and declared I am taking "every one of my statements as a personal attack." Your attempts at logic are ridiculous. If you want me to treat you respect, you need to give me the respect of not writing arguments that insult my intelligence. For instance, we disagree on an issue, and that makes it a matter of opinion? No, no it doesn't. As for the rest, you are once again attacking a strawman. Now, the Bible does not say what you say it says. Therefore, the most honest thing to do would be to say in the article that this is an intepretation of the Bible. The bare minimum is to cite a source that supports your claim that this is the consensus interpretation, rather than citing the Bible like it directly says that. You keep saying that "everyone" agrees that this is what the Bible says. So it shouldn't be any trouble to find a reputable source saying this.Heqwm (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote above comparing this article to ones in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Jewish Encyclopedia? Jon513 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm, continuing to make edits against consensus is unhelpful. I will not further address your points on civility. We're here to discuss issues, not people. At the same time, calling my responses "ridiculous" sours the debate. I have not labeled your views in such a way and am carefully avoiding this.

I have "cited the Bible like it directly says". I have explained why even on plain reading one is not forced to accept that "ten commandments" there must refer to the ritual decalogue, and you have not actually explained why (and on the basis of which sources) you think I'm wrong. Jon513 has provided some sources that follow the same line, and you have still not indicated whether you have read these. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since my other attempts have failed to get through, I'll go back to "Fisking".

Heqwm, continuing to make edits against consensus is unhelpful. Consensus? What planet are you on? There have been only two other editors commenting, and one seems to agree that other sources are required, and the other agrees that "Wikipedia can't accept an editors own personal interpretation of the Bible".

I will not further address your points on civility. We're here to discuss issues, not people. At the same time, calling my responses "ridiculous" sours the debate. Ah, so you won't discuss civility... except to criticize me. Posting ridiculous arguments is what sours the debate. I can't have a discussion with you if you insist on making up new definitions for words, such as "plain reading" meaning "whatever I say it means" and "opinion" meaning "anything people disagree on".

I have not labeled your views in such a way and am carefully avoiding this. So declaring your interpretation "plain meaning" is not in any way conceited and a clear declaration that my position is without any merit?

I have "cited the Bible like it directly says". Did you even read what I wrote? Your editing of my words indicate that you didn't even bother trying to understand what I'm saying.

I have explained why even on plain reading one is not forced to accept that "ten commandments" there must refer to the ritual decalogue, And I have said, again and again and again, that I am not saying that. And yet you insist on misrepresenting my position. Heqwm (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not said anything above that relates to the discussion at hand. You have not responded to my statement above about comparison to the other encyclopedia. I agree with JFW that you are being unhelpful. Please don't respond to this paragraph.

I have added a sentence to second paragraph of the article as follows: "According to this alternate Biblical explanation the Ten Commandments ("aseret had'varim"") mentioned in the Bible are referring to the Ritual Decalogue." This should address your concerns. Now it is clear to the reader that the entire article is not referring to the "Ritual Decalogue" theory and anyone interested in it should go there. Please respond to this paragraph.

Frankly I think that the article is giving too much coverage of the Ritual Decalogue theory as it is not well accepted even by biblical critics and not at all by any religious (Jewish or Christian) commentators. Jon513 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think using the intro to distinguish between RD and ED reflects a complete lack of balance. We are mentioning the RD in one line, and that should be it. Heqwm has not provided us with real arguments, or sources for that matter, other than his own reading of Exodus. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that there are plenty of ref that suggest that Ex 34:28,at least at one time, ref to the RD (not to mention the rules of grammar, definitions of the words used). Maybe it should be in the "controvery" section? I think the fact/idea/suggestion that the bible itself identifies the RD as the 10C is very interesting, notablable, important. Also, I think the the title of the paragraph "Ritual Dec." in said section, well, doesn't do the job. By reading the title, nobody knows what controvery it ref to, unless they are already are familiar with the RD. I originally suggested "Which Ten Commandments?". Any other suggestions? Steve kap (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I think that the article is giving too much coverage of the Ritual Decalogue theory as it is not well accepted even by biblical critics and not at all by any religious (Jewish or Christian) commentators

That the Bible doesn't unambiguously identitfy the 10C is not a "theory:, it's a fact.

I think using the intro to distinguish between RD and ED reflects a complete lack of balance. WP:WEIGHT refers to viewpoints, not facts.

Heqwm has not provided us with real arguments, or sources for that matter, other than his own reading of Exodus.What part of "the burden of proof is one you" do you not understand?Heqwm (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the majority of biblical historians DO subsrice to at least some version of the DH, and DO see the RD as another, probably ealiers 10C including EX34:28. Seems like those that oppose, Jewish theologians, Catholic theologens, have a religous bias. Am I wrong? Put another way, I've never read a secular religous historian not subscribe to some form of the DH. Can someone give me an example of such? Steve kap (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. This article is the "Ten Commandments". That is the verses in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 that are universally called the Ten Commandments; the ones that are debated about being placed in public school; the ones that are talked about as the fundamental of morality. It is not about the list in Exodus 34. The article is not about the use of the words "עשרת הדברות" in the Bible; it is about a particular Bible list that is called The Ten Commandments.

Now there is a sentence (which you want removed), let's take a look at it:

"The commandments passage in Exodus contains more than ten imperative statements, totalling fourteen or fifteen in all. However, the Bible itself assigns the count of "ten" to the list, using the Hebrew phrase ʻaseret had'varim.[3] Various religions divide these statements among the Commandments in different ways, and may also translate the Commandments differently."

This is a very important statement. Without this sentences one might think that the number ten simply came from counting the commandments, or was an oral tradition. Without it one could not understand how there is a debate about what exactly the ten commandments are.

You feel that this statement is not sourced. Yet I am sure you agree that the number "Ten" in the title "The TEN Commandments" comes from the Hebrew phrase "aseret had'varim" even if you personally think that this was a mistake.

I do not think there is a better way of telling the reader that the etymology of the title "The Ten Commandments" for the list in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 is from the Hebrew "aseret had'varim". Jon513 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ten commandments, part 2

I'm getting tired of having to scroll through several pages to get to the bottom, so I'm starting a new section.

Let's take a step back. This article is the "Ten Commandments". That is the verses in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 that are universally called the Ten Commandments; the ones that are debated about being placed in public school; the ones that are talked about as the fundamental of morality. It is not about the list in Exodus 34. The article is not about the use of the words "עשרת הדברות" in the Bible; it is about a particular Bible list that is called The Ten Commandments.

This is an important point, except that I would go further. This article is not about a particular Bible list. This is article about a cultural artifact known as "the Ten Commandments" that is strongly influenced by the Bible. Sections of the Bible have been translated, moved around, edited, cropped, etc., and then declared "The Ten Commandments". I think that many people think of the 10C as something where you just open the Bible up and there they are. That's just not the case. The cultural concept of "The Ten Commandments" is significantly extra-bibical. Haven't you ever seen that Late Show bit where Letternman takes someone's words and edits them to say something different from what they actually said? You can't just say "well, I've quoted the Bible, so it's a legitimate representation of the Bible."

You feel that this statement is not sourced. Yet I am sure you agree that the number "Ten" in the title "The TEN Commandments" comes from the Hebrew phrase "aseret had'varim" even if you personally think that this was a mistake.

Actually, I remain unconvinced of this. I have seen no convincing evidence that the Bible using the word "ten" and people referring to the "ten" commandments are causally connected. I certainly am willing to accede that this may say more about my knowledge of Bible research rather than about the 10C.

I do not think there is a better way of telling the reader that the etymology of the title "The Ten Commandments" for the list in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 is from the Hebrew "aseret had'varim".

So there are two problems immediately apparent here. First, you have no cite for the claim that this is the etymology. Secondly, even if it were the etymology, that would be an issue completely separate from whether the Bible actually says that. After all, the etymology of the term "Uncle Tom" goes back to a book by Stowe, even though the Uncle Tom character is not in fact an "Uncle Tom".

Any reasonable person reading the text as it now is would conclude that the Bible, in the Ex 20 and De 5 passages, uses the term "עשרת הדברות". I don't see why you insist on retaining this misrepresentation.

This is a notable issue because, as you mentioned, the Ten Commandments are widely represented as being fundamental to Western Civilization. Besides the numerous other problems with that claim, the fact that much of the importance given to "The" Ten Commandments is extrabiblical opposes that view.Heqwm (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

both the britannica article and the Jewish encyclopedia article state in their first sentence that the source of title "the ten commandments" is from the biblical עשרת הדברים. Jon513 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your first link, there are immediate questions regarding its reliability, as it speaks of religious beliefs as if they were facts "DECALOGUE (in patristic Gr. Se Kaoryos, sc. 131 1 6A03 or vop.oNo-La), another name for the biblical Ten Commandments, in Hebrew the Ten Words (Deut. iv. 13, x. 4; Ex. xxxiv. 28), written by God on the two tables of stone" (bolding mine). And even that site agrees that "In the narrative of Exodus the relation of the "ten words" of xxxiv. to the words spoken from Sinai, xx. 2-17, is not so clearly indicated, and it is generally agreed that the Pentateuch presents divergent and irreconcilable views of the Sinaitic covenant." I simply don't see how you think that cite supports your views.Heqwm (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

3th/4th commandment

The 3th/4th commandment (depending on how you divide them) is not "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." The commandment is actually "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." You can add a comma after "Sabbath" if you want, but there is definitely not an "and" in that commandment. Mrpopo66 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how one translates the Hebrew prefix "le-". An alternative translation could be "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy". JFW | T@lk 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon, your just assuming that one side is right, and arguing from there. Also, I don't think its helpful to agrue what "the" 10C are. Look at the def of the word "the", it ref to the object that all parties know that it ref's to!!! And because that is just what is being debated, well, no good comes that way. I think its better to talk about, say, what what one religous tradition holds has the 10C, what scholors believe once was ref to as the 10C, etc. Steve kap (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe your comment is misplace.

I am not assuming that one side is correct, I am stating that everyone even those that think that the ritual Decalogue is the "real" ten commandments refer to the same list when saying "the ten commandments". This is not an article about the word "ten commandments" in the bible. It is about the list that everyone, you included, call the ten commandments. Again, the scholars might say that in the bible the words "ten commandments" refer to the ritual Decalogue and that countless people for generations have it all mixed up, but they will agree that in the modern world when someone says "the ten commandments" they are talking about this list. Jon513 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd/3rd Commandment

It is now widely accepted by modern evangelical Christian scholars such as D Maxwell and Graeme Goldsworthy that the correct translation of the 3rd Commandment should be more like:

"You shall not bear the name of the LORD falsely"

This meaning shows a much larger commandment than the translation "misuse" or "use .. in vain", and is widely accepted by scholars. The meaning, then, is that God's people are those upon whom God's name rests; his reputation (i.e. name) is linked with theirs so strongly that they must model his holy character by their lives. Thus the commandment is a prohibition against havign his name on you and yet living a life that brings his name into disgrace. The Hebrew verb nasa is the usual word for 'to bear' or 'to carry'. It is nothing to do with speaking.

For further reading, see 'Prayer and the Knowledge of God' by G. Goldsworthy, IVP, 2003. I believe that the 'Typical Interpretation' section should include a short summary of this meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwlegg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ten commandments, part 3

Heqwm and Steve kap (and Jon513), I think it is pointless carrying on with our discussion unless further sources can be provided. Jon513 has provided several highly authoritative sources that support the view I and him have been defending. The onus is now on Heqwm and Steve to provide sources for theirs. This is not a question of right and wrong interpretations, but it is a question of lending adequate amounts of weight to views and ensuring they are verifiable. I will not make any further comment until such sources are forthcoming. I'm not sure if Steve's "Which Ten Commandments?" (URL) falls under the heading of "a highly authoritative source". JFW | T@lk 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jon513 has provided several highly authoritative sources that support the view I and him have been defending." No, he hasn't.

"The onus is now on Heqwm and Steve to provide sources for theirs." What is my view? DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE EDITS UNTIL YOU HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.Heqwm (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He has, look above for Encyclopedia Britannica and Jewish Encyclopedia sources. As I said in response to your post on my talkpage, you need to be clearer about your position if you are so worried about it being misrepresented. You have stated that the words "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 must refer to a list of ten commandments in that chapter. We have adduced proof (or at least provided arguments) that this cannot be the case. I really don't understand why you are responding so aggressively (which includes the unnecessary use of capitals and boldface, which is parallel to shouting at others in real life), and by continuously making changes that you know will be reverted.

I notice you have now again completely removed the sentence in question. If you are so desperate about it, just leave it out and let's end this circular discussion. I'm sure we are not likely to achieve consensus here any time soon. JFW | T@lk 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the statement and changed the footnote to "The uses of the phrase aseret had'varim are at Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, and Deuteronomy 10:4. For alternative theory to what these verse may be referring to see Ritual Decalogue". If JFW wants to remove the last sentence, I won't disagree.

I believe this settles all (or at least most) of the concerns you have raised (a concern about the citation I believe). But I agree with JFW that you have not been forthcoming in explaining yourself. When I tried to understand what you wanted and asked "Heqwm, would you be satisfied if the footnote also contains reference to some of the many secondary sources that interpret exodus 34:28 as referring to the "ethical Decalogue"?" you didn't answer, instead you took it as a sign of what I believed. When I added a sentence to article and asked for your opinion on it, you didn't say if that version was what you wanted. You have constantly criticized the article as being "unsourced" but don't state how you want it changed. And have not shown the slightest inclination to find sources yourself. You have said you want the citation to say that is consensus interpretation, but instead of just adding that you remove the entire sentence! When I point out that the sentence contains important information and shouldn't be removed - you ignore me.

The difficulty with citing secondary sources is that there are so many of them. For example, every single classical Jewish commentary without exception agrees that the ten commandment are Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. The problem is that most do not state so explicitly because they consider it so obvious. Nevertheless whenever they do mentioned the ten commandment it is clear what they they are referring to from context (ie they refer to respecting parents, or not murdering etc). It is hard to find those reference, and moreover would do nothing to improve the article (and probably do much harm in having a hundred meaningless citations). And even if I did the same for anther hundred Christian sources, and another hundred academic source I would have nothing to show for my effort because this still wouldn't show that this is the overwhelming consensus, because it don't prove that dissenting opinions don't exist (perhaps I am just not citing them).

So instead I cited ternary sources (the Britannica encyclopedia, and the Jewish Encyclopedia) which have gone through the secondary sources and have arrived at a conclusion. They have concluded that the overwhelming consensus that Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, and Deuteronomy 10:4 is referring the the ten commandments is so great there is no need to cite secondary sources. When I pointed this out - you ignored me. When I asked for a response after that - you didn't respond again. When JFW pointed this out (twice) you still did not respond. After I point this out a third time you finally respond and say that the neither source is reliable. As Wikipedia's stated goal is to be a high quality encyclopedia similar to other high quality encyclopedia (like Encyclopædia Britannica), perhaps you should find a project whose goals match more closely with your own.

I agree with JFW that this conversation has reached an end. I am not interesting in it any longer.

Removing an entire sentence because you want it improved is a violation of policy and more importantly rude. If you want a sentence improved say exactly how you want it to be presented on the talk page. If you want it to have sources, but aren't willing to find the sources yourself I suggest you find a new hobby. Jon513 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the solution, and hope that Heqwm and Steve kap can agree with this. It relegates the entire discussion to a footnotes without ignoring it completely. That's a lot better than the in-your-face controversy being spun out in the intro itself. Obviously, if this is still not agreeable to Heqwm, I may change my mind and decide that mention of the RD in the footnote is still pushing it. The choice, Heqwm, is therefore yours. I'm pretty much done here. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

JFW said: He has, look above for Encyclopedia Britannica and Jewish Encyclopedia sources. This response ignores the arguments I have presented to the contrary.

As said in response to your post on my talkpage, you need to be clearer about your position if you are so worried about it being misrepresented. That’s utter crap.

You have stated that the words "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 must refer to a list of ten commandments in that chapter. Really? When?

We have adduced proof (or at least provided arguments) that this cannot be the case. What is "this"? That it refers to the 10C, or that it must refer to the 10C?

I really don't understand why you are responding so aggressively (which includes the unnecessary use of capitals and boldface, which is parallel to shouting at others in real life) I will not explain my exasperation with you, both because the reason for it is obvious, and it would be difficult to express my feelings towards you without violating WP:CIVIL.

Jon513 said: But I agree with JFW that you have not been forthcoming in explaining yourself. JFW's misrepresentations of my positions are completely unjustified. The fact that I have not answered every single question that you have presented doesn't change that fact.

You have constantly criticized the article as being "unsourced" but don't state how you want it changed. I have indicated what my problems with it are, both in my edits and in the talk page.

And have not shown the slightest inclination to find sources yourself. Nor have you explained why child molestation should be legal.

You have said you want the citation to say that is consensus interpretation, but instead of just adding that you remove the entire sentence! Perhaps you didn't notice this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ten_Commandments&oldid=185549812 .

They have concluded that the overwhelming consensus that Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, and Deuteronomy 10:4 is referring the the ten commandments is so great there is no need to cite secondary sources. When I pointed this out - you ignored me. When have I ever disputed that the consensus is that the ED is "the" ten commandments? When you write post after post challenging a claim that I never made, and I ignore you, is that surprising? Really? I just... I mean, REALLY? I just can't wrap my mind around that. I am honestly, literally, dumbfounded. If you don't already understand how bizarre that is, I can't for the life of me think of words to explain it to you.

As Wikipedia's stated goal is to be a high quality encyclopedia similar to other high quality encyclopedia (like Encyclopædia Britannica), No, Wikipedia's stated goal is to be of quality higher than that of EB. I don't know about the most recent editions, but traditionally EB has had an egregious bias in favor of Christianity completely at odds with WP's stated goals.

I agree with JFW that this conversation has reached an end. I am not interesting in it any longer. Then why are you posting comments? What, you just expect me to let you have the last word?

Removing an entire sentence because you want it improved is a violation of policy and more importantly rude. Mischaracterizing someone's actions and accusing them of bad faith are WP:CIVIL violation. Deleting unsourced claims is an accepted WP practice, and despite that I did so only as a last resort.

If you want it to have sources, but aren't willing to find the sources yourself I suggest you find a new hobby. Umm... if you think that you can make unsourced edits, and then, when someone complains about the lack of sources, say "If you want it to have sources, but aren't willing to find the sources yourself I suggest you find a new hobby", then it seems to me that you are the one in need of a encyclopedia with goals closer to your own.Heqwm (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm, rather than fisking our posts and swearing, can you please outline your position without reference to our previous discussion. I want to have one further go at trying to achieve a compromise, but I can only do that if you give a position statement that is simple enough for this bear of very little brain to understand. Pooh also gets frightened when people SHOUT and blame him for missing the point. JFW | T@lk 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)