Talk:Ten Commandments

Judaism mixed with Islam?

When i read the article of the 10 commandments, I was quite shocked and find it very offensive that in this article, which is meant to be Judeo-Christian, has an Islamic version of the 10 commandments. I as a Christian, stand up to my beliefs and say this is mocking Judaism and Christianity. Why is there an article of Islam mixed with an article of the ten commandments? The article Ten Commandments even has a Judaism info box, mixed with an Islam info box. There should at least be a Islam portal, just as Christianity has a Christianity portal because it is related to Judaism. I, representing Christians and Jews, say this should be fixed right away. It should not be taken "Freedom of Religion", this is very offensive to my beliefs, and my rights of freedom of religion. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7]] comment added by JonasanRat7 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't care if you are offended. There is no reason to be offended anyway. Perhaps I should add the Levayan Satanic Decalogue just to piss you off.

Exodus 34

This entire article needs to be redone. It completely ignores what the bible says. It is written almost as a propaganda piece for the continuation of the fairy tale we believe as "the Ten Commandments." The fact is, the bible -- the word of God -- only lists one place where ten commandments are written on stone tablets: Exodus 34. Exodus 34 is where you find the REAL 10 Commandments, as spoken by God. That is why Exodus 34 is the version kept in the Arc of the Covenant. This version must be given at least the same level of attention as the other two versions, if not a greater level of attention. Just because people currently like the other two versions better, does not mean that they are the correct ones. The people are being spoon-fed a myth by rabbis and preachers, because they are too lazy to read the actual text themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.115.30 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exodus 34 version: Religious conservatives generally accept the Bible as inerrant and believe that Yahweh dictated this version to Moses who wrote it down in brush and ink circa 1450 BCE. Liberals generally accept that this version was written by an anonymous author generally referred to as "J" sometime between 848 and 722 BCE.

The text reads: 12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. 17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt. 19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. 20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty. 21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. 22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. 23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel. 24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year. 25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning. 26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.115.30 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Translated into modern words, what God declared and wrote on stone as the "Ten Commandments" would read as follows:

I. Thou shalt worship no other god.

II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

III.. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep

IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

VI. Thrice In the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.

VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

IX. The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

X. Thou shalt not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.

And there you have it -- the real ten commandments.

Uh, besides the fact that no-one reads comments at the top of a talk page, there is already a link to Ritual Decalogue in the introduction. kwami (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but I think its telling that there is a steady stream of such comments, from independent source. The status quo, the ED being the main article and the RD being a side article, the ED article being written from a religous point of view (I contend) and the RD article written from and academic POV maybe isn't the best way. I think this article (ED) is carefully taylored to remove any incosistencey in the story. The 2 delivery methods (spoken vs written), the 2 different texts (ED vs RD). Such censorship is fine for a Sunday school class, but not for wiki. Steve_Kap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.183.73 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the Biblical narrative section should cover both, and primarily about the RD, since that's the primary narrative. I think it reads better now (didn't you add much of it?), and I added the RD to the comparative table. But there is I think a legitimate point about splitting the article. When a US court provokes controversy by posting the 10 C's, they're posting the ED (probably in its Protestant version), not the RD. When kids are taught the 10 C's in Sunday school, they're taught the ED. When someone on TV or the radio tells you to mind the 10th commandment, they're not talking about goat stew. Therefore when people come here, they're most likely interested in the ED. Of course, we should make it very clear that the RD is primary in the narrative, but since it isn't primary in the Bible outside that narrative, IMO it shouldn't be primary in this article apart from the narrative section.

When I first started with this, there was not a single word in Wikipedia about the RD anywhere. There was scarcely anything available on the web! (I couldn't find anything on the www to even use as a basic reference.) I'm actually quite pleased that its addition has been accepted as well as it has been.

Hey, I just noticed a BBC guide to the ED vs. RD, posted last April.[1] I wonder if it was sparked by the Wikipedia entry, which I started ... Wow, almost makes me feel like we can make a difference here! kwami (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely that the BBC was inspired by the RD article, surly they were informed by it, something to be proud of Kwami. Lets not lose sight, the orginal effort was to split the RD from the main article, then DELETE the RD article!! I remember one rather stunning argument that you couldn't have an article about the RD if you couldn't sight the maiden name of the mother of the first person to put the idea to paper, or some such silly thing.

About the "Narative" section, I still say it read like a sunday school lesson. The first paragraph, "According biblical text..", as if there is one text in the bible that unamibusuly says what follow. In reality, there is text stating that the 10C were spoken to the peolple AND text about the stones. There in text in Exodus and in Dut.

I'd prefer something like "The first mention of the 10C is in Ex xx.xx, in which God speaks (the ED) to the people", and "Next, in Ex xx.xx, (Moses goes up the mountain, gets the stones, brakes the stone)". "Then in Ex 34, the stones are recreated, interestingly with a different set of commandments (ref RD article)". "Then, the story is recupitulated in Dutaronomly, but only ref to the stones, and only listing (the ED)". No POV, no religous interpretation, just summorizing what the text say. I'd also add something about how the difference sections/stories/commandements are generally seen by scholars as coming from different authers, the yahwest, the priestly sources, ect ref, the documentary hypothesis. I'm a really bad writter, so I'd pref to leave to others, but I'll put it in if no one else will Steve kap (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Killing and murder

Commandment 6 in the King James version of the Bible (which is the most widely accepted version), in both the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy is "Thou shalt not kill".

Why has the word 'kill' been replaced with the word 'murder', which means a subtly different thing? And why can't it be changed by users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljays (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked because it was receiving a lot of vandalism. You behave for a few days, and you will get autoconfirmed, meaning that you can edit it to your heart's content.

The issue of killing vs murdering has been debated numerous times. There is an entire section at Ten Commandments#Killing or murder that discusses this. On balance, the Hebrew version uses a word stem that generally refers to unjustified killing (as opposed to court-decreed death penalty). This is why in the "general translation" we stick with murder. KJV is not the only translation of the Bible. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Refing Wikipedia

This article contains quite a few refs that direct to other articles on Wikipedia. This is pretty much not right. This problem had been discussed in other articles as well, and the conclusion was to not use Wikipedia (or any other Wiki) as a source of references for articles in Wikipedia. This article needs to be fixed, regarding this matter. diego_pmc (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is just that the footnote you removed is not complete. It is actually a reference of the commentary by Rashi on this verse. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified the references to prevent confusion. Jon513 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a commandment? I get referenced here, no joke I have no idea what it is. A definition would be nice. Even a synonym might help me. I am guessing it is different then a covenant? ISO 1806: 2008-05-30 T03:59 Z-7 76.170.118.217 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious neutrality inaccurately equated with athiesm

This is a casual drive-by comment. I skimmed this article for the first time, just now, and one thing jumped out at me as a bit strange:

"Rather than enforcing any religious belief, or irreligion, some tend to merely feel that the state ought to be neutral on the subject of religion, and allow people to find their own faith, rather than have the state appear to endorse any particular beliefs. However, dispute continues over whether atheism is really a neutral alternative due to the fact that some feel it too falls under the dictionary definition of a religion."

The separation of church and state and respecting various religious traditions is inaccurately and bizarrely being called 'athiesm' here, which is obviously incorrect. So that final sentence is completely out of place. I can only assume that sentence is an artifact of an emotionally charged revision history? Since this article is locked against casual editing, I'll make that comment here, and someone who's been more involved can act as appropriate.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.197.101 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actioned. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I find the entire paragraph seems to constitute opinion more than verifiable fact. Perhaps it should be removed entirely?:

"This incident shows another practical reason why not posting religious doctrine on government property is expedient; it is unlikely that a believer in the commandments would appreciate having a shrine to another religion placed next to them, and taken to its logical outcome (as shown by the Summum incident), it is clear that permitting religious speech through the mouthpiece of the state is impractical, given the reality of the diversity of religious belief and non-belief in the United States. Rather than enforcing any religious belief, or irreligion, many feel that the state ought to be neutral on the subject of religion, and allow people to find their own faith, rather than have the state endorse or appear to endorse any particular beliefs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrTh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this sentiment. It is offering the writers conclusion based on his opinion and not a fact. Good if you are writing a paper, bad for an encyclopedia. 24.106.106.245 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph should definitely be deleted. It is completely non-encycopledic content. Moreove, the stacking of arguments inevitably will require continuous edits as people answer back to each other through the wiki.

As currently formulated, the paragraph includes the statement:

"In response, still others argue that this can amount to State imposition of a minority belief of secularism and moral relativity, rather than the State reflecting the will of a majority, emphasizing the impossibility of the State so fully separating itself from any belief system"

Well that's nice, except by saying this, the article necessitates the explanation that there exists the possibility of a non-religion based source of morality. Not all atheists are relativists.

The whole paragraph is a tiresome rehashing of the personal opinions of the authors and caricatures the debate in no small part because it replaces the actual arguments in the debate with strawman arguments. Simonus (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dulia

The explanation given for Dulia is not correct. It says Catholic teaching distinguishes between dulia—paying honor to God through contemplation of objects such as paintings and statues—and latria—adoration directed to God alone.

Dulia is honor given to Saints not to God. See [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhdr (talk • contribs)

Discovery on Lieing

You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Lev 19:11) See [3] -leviticus

And therefore? JFW | T@lk 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts right

In atheist Soviet Union the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism had many notions much resembling the Ten Commandments.

Uh, the Soviets weren't atheist, and even if they were their atheism doesn't have anything to do with the Ten Commandments. POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.222.226 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. A simalar claim is made at Moral Code of the Builder of Communism but no source is given. Without attributing the this to a person who makes this comparision it sound like or to me. Jon513 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that wikipedia is supposed to reflect fact, can we not let future generations who might read these revisions know that some of us at least thought that communism utilised the religious mechanisms within humans to facilitate adherence? In other words, calling the Soviet Union atheist is perhaps going to be viewed as naive. Nino124.170.109.182 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As most do?

In the controversies section that discusses the teaching of the ten commandments at schools I'd submit that the bracketed addition in the sentence "if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew (as most do)," are pretty clearly weasel words. I'm sure what they say is accurate, but without a reference that shows an empirical survey result of how many Jewish parents intend to raise their children Jewish it seems to be an unnecessary definer. Ozlucien (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there is not source provided to show that most Jewish parents intend to raise their children in their faith. It's also tangential to the central point - that some Jews prefer their children to receive even fairly commonplace aspects of religious education from other Jews and not from a secular institution like a public school. I've removed the words while retaining the meaning of the concern. Any opposing viws or comments welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification?

I don't have a lot to contribute here; all I have to say is, what exactly does "bear false witness" mean? For me it's the least clear of them all. I assume it means don't spread lies about others, but I really can't be sure, and I think this article ought to have something about that, given that the phrase is archaic and strange, it needs some sort of explanation. 75.70.163.198 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps perjury would be a better word to use. Jon513 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a lie that can hurt someone not like your age but like "she has a coke addiction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.86.102 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Revised 10 commandments

I have removed a long comment by [[::User:Newworldthinkers|Newworldthinkers]] ([[::User talk:Newworldthinkers|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Newworldthinkers|contribs]]) which was a criticism and commentary on the commandments. For those interesting in reading it can be found at http://relig-i-diculous.blogspot.com/2008/01/ten-commandments-new-translation.html and you are welcome to comment there. I would like to remind everyone that the talk pages are to talk about ways to improves the article, not a general place to discuss the subject of the article. Jon513 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. The Ten Commandments should be discussed as other fiction is discussed on Wikipedia. There are excellent articles on Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, and many other fantasy topics. -- Terry J. Gardner (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't put editors' personal opinions in articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While Terry's comments are a bit over the sarcastic line, imo, he brings out a good point, that religous mythology should be presented as such. In case this point is lost, I rememeber that at one point this article presented AS HISTORICAL FACT that the stones of the 10C where written thru the entire stone, and yet did not appear inverted when looked at from the back of the stone. Nothing actionable here, just a reminder.Steve kap (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether these materials are fact or mythology is a matter of point of view. Some people regard them as fact, others as mythology. Both points of view are significant The neutral point of view policy prevents us from taking sides and saying who is right with respect to significant points of view. Wikipedia shouldn't present anything as fact; it should only present signicant opinions. An editor's personal agreement with one point of view or another is irrelevant. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, fact and mythology are not mutually exclusive. Second, that fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it fact, and doesn't make it not a myth. Think living Elvis. I would be perfectly OK to have an article saying that there are people that believe that Elvis is alive. But NOT OK to have an article saying that Elvis IS alive.

There may be case where notable sources disagree with come under the heading of history and what comes under the heading of myth, but really, not usually. And certainlly not in the case I mentioned.

Moreover, my point was and is that mythology should be presented as such. If the source is the undisputed commonly head believes of a religous community, thats fine, but it should presented as such, as it is, I think mostly, curently in this article. However, there is always a danger that those believers will present those believes as fact. We have seen that in the history of this article, as I've pointed out with the example of the stone. No source was presented forwarding the idea that these most improbable see-thru stones where a historical fact, only that it was part of a religous tradition. And yet, it was presented as historical. I of course agree that editors opinions should be not relevent, I am in fact trying to advanced that end thru the above reminder. Steve kap (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The information is sourced to the Talmud, which is a reliable source for traditional Jewish religious views on the subject. Since the article clearly states that this is the view of the Talmud, there is no question of presenting anything as absolute fact. When religious views are presented as religious views attributed to religious sources. there's no problem. There's no question that the Talmud's view is relevant and significant given the religious nature of the article's subject. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In hopes of removing any remaining possibility of doubt that what is being presented is a traditional religious view, I've moved this material from the "Biblical origins" heading to a new "Classical Jewish interpretations" subheading under the "Religious interpretations" section. I've added additional clarifying language identifying the Talmud as "the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition, and interpretation." I believe this should very clearly indicate that this material represents traditional religious interpretations. I hope this addresses the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think thats on the point. Agreed, the Talmud is a reliable source for tradition Jewish religious views, but its NOT a reliable source for history. It is this difference that I was wanting to highlight. Maybe 1 year ago, I changed the heading form "History" to "Biblical Origins". Maybe your heading is more general, more accurate. My only point is that its not HISTORY, as history is understood my academics. There are those that would disagree, but they'd be in the minority, and the burden of sourcing would be on them. Steve kap (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From re-reading the "Biblical Origins" section, and in light of this discussion, I'm concerned about the paragraph starting "After receving the commandments..". I think think it read like a statement of history, rather than a statement of a religous tradition or mythology (in the academic sence), which it clearly is, I think we'd agree. Maybe the heading "Biblical Origins" covers this, if everone understand that the bible is a document of religous tradition, not of history, but I'm not so sure. What do other people think? Steve kap (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a statement of what the Bible says. Other articles have something like "Biblical narrative" or similar rather than "Biblical origins". I doubt a reader would perceive a difference, but if you think it would we could change it. Editors can be referred to the Bible article for different views on what the Bible is and represents. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the assumation that there is only one narrative is problimatic. Mainstream biblical scholors tend to see the bible as having many sources, evidenced by the 2 creation stories, 2 versions of the 10C, 2 stories of a rape mobe after a vistor, etc.

Ex 20 has the 10C being spoken to the nation, but the story in the aritcle says they were held by Moses for 3 days, then showed them (presumably on tablets) to the nation. I don't see why one narative should be preffered over the other.

The Talmud is a source, of course, but I don't think it can be used as the "tie breaker". For one thing, it represents the tradition of a very small minority, %.01 of the world population. Its fine to present what it says, but it should be presented as "according to the Talmud", not the final word. Its minority point of view, after all.

I think its quite wrong to present one narative as "the" tradition when there are others. And even more wrong to present it as history. We can't leave it like this. Its misleading and wrong. Steve kap (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's have one section on "Biblical narrative" and another on "critical view", saying which stream (out of JEDP) modern scholarship regards the Ten Commandments as belonging to. It doesn't need to go further and discuss the validity of the Biblical narrative as a whole, except as it specifically relates to the Ten Commandments. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I think that sets up a false dichotomy. My whole point is that there is no just one cohesive biblical narrative. Also, I don't think there is just one stream that modern scholarship regard the Ten C belong to. Rather, I think they would hold, its a combination of different stories. Maybe if it was labeled "The Origin of the 10 C According to Various Traditions" or "Mythical Origins" or "Origin Traditions". Then, in that section, simply ref to all the different origin traditions, the 20 Ex story, the 34 Ex story (and its relation to the stones, the Ethical 10C and the Ritual 10C, and all contraversy there), how Dotaronemy re-told the story and what why, what the Tulmod has to say about it, what most people think, etc.

Its simple, and its honest. We don't decide whats right, we just put in whats there.

Steve kap (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've been through this before. There's no intention to censor various critical theories and you're welcome to add reliably sourced information about them. However, I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be inappropriate for an editor who thought biblical criticism a bunch of hootenany nonesense to recommend listing such views under the heading "Heretical views". He might be entitled to quote reliable theologians who call such views heresy (in an appropriate article), but he wouldn't be entitled to present heretical status as a fact, and he wouldn't be entitled to get around not being able to do so by wording the section headings to do the same thing. WP:NPOV requires describing material and views in ways that do not disparage. I understand you don't like being treated the same way as such an editor, but WP:NPOV requires equal dispassion. A simple summary of what the Bible says, followed by various views of it, is a straightforward way to preserve neutrality and implement the WP:NPOV policy. The heading of the section that describes what the Bible says needs to be neutrally worded. It shouldn't imply anything about it one way or the other or represent anyone's particular perspective. I think "Biblical narrative" would be adequate to cover the situation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, which narative would you choose? I'm I free to add the Ex 20 narrative, next to the Ex 34 narative (spoken to the people vs given to Mose (maybe on a stone), and given 3 days later)? Would I be required to make it appear as one narrative?

BTW, you make an implication that if one doesn't believe that the bible has some sort of special wisdom ("hooteney nonesense"), they are less qualified to be and editor. I'd argue the opposite. That if one thinks any particular text in supernaturally inspired, without any evidence (hence, faith), they are obviously have a vested interest on a partiular reading, and would be more prone to bias.

The idea that there is one and only one narative is fine for a Sunday (or Saturday) bible school class, but not for and encylopedia. We must be more objective. We must present ambiguity and discord as we find them, as biblical historians do. 67.161.33.252 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that one has to be a believer in order comment on a faith, that’s a real problem. Notice how it would shield the belief from outside criticism. It’s a good self-defense mechanism for the faith, of course. The idea that the Koran is only “official” in the ordinal Arabic comes to mind. If any outsider who doesn’t speak Arabic offers any critics, the faithful can say “what do you know; you can’t even read our holey book”. So outside critics are held a bay. In any case, of course that standard can’t and shouldn’t be enforced at Wiki. It’s the every opposite of what makes Wiki great. Steve kap (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the section relabeled "Biblical Narative":

Begin by mentioning the 1st ref to the 10C, Ex 20, in which they are spoken by god to the people, and the people were afraid. Add an illustriative quote from that chapter.

Then, go to EX 34 (?), Moses climbs the mountain, receives the stone, see's the bad behavior, brakes the stones, climbs the mountain again, receives the stones again. At this point, I think we have to mention that the text in this point of the narrrative contains the RD. Because its true. However, we can point out that Christian, Jewish tradition AND the Talmuld hold that the 2nd set contained the more familiar set. Maybe someone more qualified then me can, in the article, explain why.

Then, mention the reprise of the EX 34 (?) story in Dutaronemy (20?), making it clear that, in this narrative, the 2nd set contains only the more familiar 10C.

The rest can continue as it is presently written.

I think the above is both neutral and accurate. It both acknowledges the (arguably) majority point of view, and presents what is in the texts, without any judgment. What say you all? Steve kap (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabbath day

About "the custom of meeting for worship on Sunday originated in paganism, specifically Sol Invictus and Mithraism (in which sun-god worship took place on Sunday) and constitutes an explicit rejection of the commandment to keep the seventh day holy": I think that is where the word "Sunday" comes from? Is it or is it not? Also, isn't the fact that Saturday is the seventh day of the week is only a feature of our calendar anyways? --zzo38(✉) 04:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Days of the week correctly shows the correspondence with Hebrew. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sabbath day is on Saturday in Judaism but it was "officially" moved when Jesus rose on Sunday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.86.102 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After the following section : The Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, True Jesus Church, United Church of God, Living Church of God and some other churches disagree with some of these views. They argue that the custom of meeting for worship on Sunday originated in paganism, specifically Sol Invictus and Mithraism (in which sun-god worship took place on Sunday) and constitutes an explicit rejection of the commandment to keep the seventh day holy. Instead, they keep Saturday as the Sabbath as a memorial to God's work of creation (Genesis 2:1–3, Exodus 20:8–11, Exodus 16:23,29–30) believing that none of the ten commandments can ever be destroyed (Matthew 5:17–19, Exodus 31:16).

the following sentence needs to be added (by someone who has the necessary privileges) :

"Quakers generally hold their Meetings For Worship on Sundays, but they too held that the name for it was of pagan origin, and also refused to accept that any particular day of the week was any more "special", or any less God's, than any other; early Friends, therefore, referred to Sunday as "First Day", and some Friends still follow this practice."88.105.129.242 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hack is a "Friend"? Debresser (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An Alternative Version

Exodus 34 contains a version of the Decalogue that was dictated to Moses by God after Moses destroyed the original tablets from Exodus 20. Some of the original commandments are omitted and others substituted. Someone with editing privileges might add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.106.17 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the second paragraph of the article:

"The phrase "Ten Commandments" generally refers to the very similar passages in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. Some distinguish between this "Ethical Decalogue" and a series of ten commandments in Exodus 34 that are labeled the "Ritual Decalogue"."

If you have any ideas on how to improve the article we'd love to hear them, but as the "ritual decalogue" theory has been talk about on this page before, you might want to review the archives to make sure you are not repeating what has already been discussed. Jon513 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think unsigned comments shows the need for the edits to the "Biblical narative" section that I suggested above. By simply summorizing the various naratives, we would be presenting what is there, honestly, with no spin. You can read my suggest above, but it boils down to: 1) Telling the Ex 20 story, where the 10C are SPOKEN to the people 2) Telling the story (EX 34?) of the stones, mentioning that the RD is expressed at that point where god is telling what to write on the 2nd set, but explaning that the traditions hold that the 2nd set actually contain the more familiar 10C. 3) Explaining how Dentaronemy reprise the of EX 34, but without the RD, only the ED (but, of course, we woulnd't call it the ED, to avoid offence).

The fact that we have a regular stream of people making this same comment tells me that there is a need for this sort of thing.

Fair enough? Steve kap (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In extensive previous discussions, editors concluded that the phrase "Ten Commandments" in English overwhelmingly refers to the Ethical decalogue, and per WP:Naming conventions, the consensus was that this is what this article should be about. The Ritual decalogue was given its own article to discuss it in detail. Because of this existing division, it doesn't need more than a brief summary mention and a link in this one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well then, you are still left with the problem of this sectin called "Biblical Narative". I think its important to tell the narative (EX 20) that has the 10C SPOKEN to the people. Its there. It shouldn't be ignored. I also think its important to tell the narative of the stones, received, broken, and received again. Its a popular tale.

Now, the article could say that the biblical naravtives, at the point where the stones are re-writen (EX 34:1-28 I think), that the text listed the Ethical 10C. But, of course, that would be dishonest, because, in that point in the narative, the RD is listed. We could not mention anything about what the TEXT of the bible says at that point in the naravtive, leaving the reader to ASSUME that the TEXT list the ED. Thats the way it reads now. But, again, this would be dishonest.

Or, and I think this is what Wiki policy demands, we could simply summize the naratives, without passing any judgment on them. Without omitting things, to protect religous sensibilies. Just say whats there for god sake!! We could also say what the popular, traditional, and Talmedic interpretations are.

Fair enough? Saying whats there? Using the BIBLE as a source for a section labled "Biblical Narative"? Who could object to that? Steve kap (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord's Name In Vain

Most Christians get this wrong. They think by saying "Oh Jesus" or "God damn it" that they are using the Lord's name in vain. This is wrong.

If I wanted to use my father's name, let's say he was called "Jim", then I would do the following. I would go down to the local store and say "My father said that he wants you to provide him with credit, and for you to give me a wheelbarrow now." The storekeeper would believe that I am speaking on behalf of my father, when all along I was speaking for myself (in vain) but using my father's name (Jim).

Many Christians happily tell one another "The Lord would not approve of that." Or "Do this because I am God's representative to you, and you must listen to me." If the Lord has truly given one a sign to pass to his brother, then fine, but if they are using the name of God to influence the behaviour in others for their own satisfaction then they are using the Lord's name in vain.

As Jesus said, "he who has ears let him listen." But then, could I be using the Lord's name in vain by that very sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.6.33 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No because your quoting Gavin Scott (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It opens the door to scrutinising where the quote has come from (which I agree with, but I am sure many would not). If the bible proclaims to speak the word of god, yet multiple translations and misinterpretations has distorted that word, then who could ever say that they were not taking the lord's name in vain? It would then be the responsibility of each individual to discover whether their sources are correct. Then of course people would have to have faith that anyone who has translated the bible has been 100% accurate in their endeavour. There are leaps of faith and there are bounds of faith. The most unwise course is to plan to cross a ravine in two leaps. Nino124.170.109.182 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought taking the Name in "vain" was to swear falsely by God: "As God is my witness, X is true", when it is not true. This harms Yahweh, for it shows him to be untrustworthy—otherwise how could his followers be liars in his name? kwami (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish List: 1 or 2?

Should the Jewish ranking of the Ten Commandments be amended to state that this refers to modern or contemporary Judaism? It is my understanding that the Protestant & Greek Orthodox list is partly based on Josephus & Philo. By not referencing Philo and Josephus' understanding, one could be left with the mistaken understanding that the only historic breakdown is the Catholic/Lutheran and current Jewish lists - which is not accurate. I have also read several sources that explicitly state that there are two Jewish lists, a "modern" and "ancient". (I would propose "first century" and "post first century", since "modern" has an understanding that would render this word inaccurate.)--Baxterguy (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and clarified the difference between the position held by modern Judaism (Talmudic), which can be referenced to the 3rd Century, and the documented list by ancient Jewish writers from the first century (Philonic). Since Philonic is a historic basis for both Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is critical not to imply there has been "one" Jewish position. --Baxterguy (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Narative/The Stone/RD

Folks, we seem to have gone full circle here:

The section is now called "Biblical Narative", but contains the story of the stones, without any mention of Ex 34:28 (or 27,26,25...1), implying that the BIBLICAL NARATIVE tells the story of the stones, with the ED as the context of it. The text of the bible clearly (well, arguably clearly) says something different. Now, when we had this debate years ago, we settled the matter by using some mealy mouth title like "Religous Tradition" or "Traditional Origin" or the like. True enough, the tradition as a whole has the texts of the stones as the ED, not the RD.

But, the "Biblical Narative" is important, I think, and others seem to agree, hence the current name. But, if the "Biblical Narative" is important, then its important to be accurate and complete. Not cherry picked to fit a particular tradition. It should be ref to honestly, with all its ambiguities, inconsistancies. Not this 'nod nod, wink wink' pick out a few words here that fit the tradition, leave out a few words there that don't. In short, if some doesn't add a ref to EX 34:28, the RD, I will.

Steve kap (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. kwami (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Second Commandment

when it says that there shall be no other God "before" me it does not necessarily mean that there should only be this one God. Historically, the Hebrew people continued to worship other gods along with Yaweh (the "God"). Hence the use of "before". It is considered by some academics to be an incorrect interpretation of this commandment, to believe that there is not other God 173.21.245.55 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To says that Judaism is really secretly a polytheist religion seems a bit outrageous; Even if you could cleverly read the Ten Commandments to support such a claim there are still numerous other verse wish contradict that interpretation. Also the argument seems exceptionally weak. It is well recorded in the early prophets that the Jews often worshiped foreign gods and the prophets actively rallied against the practice. It takes a great leap to infer from the fact that historically Jews sometimes worshiped foreign gods to says that this practice was permitted. This is not to say that it cannot be included as one point of view in the article, but spectacular claims needs spectacular sources. Jon513 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Monolatry is not the same as monotheism—otherwise there would be no need for Yahweh to be jealous, though Judaism has been monotheistic for quite some time now. kwami (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was not the King James Version used here? In the KJV image is used, not idols. Using idol automatically assumes worship where as using image assumes copy/reproduction. The commandment is made up of two parts. There are two "Thou shalt not" that divide each part. Making is the emphasis in the first part and worship, bow or serve in the second part. We are being deceived if we view this commandment as only a worship thing and not a making thing also --afterall, you can't have an idol without FIRST making an image. Accordingly, it's the making that begins or is the root casue of idolatry. The commandment becomes crystal clear if you look at it as God's Copyright Law --no making without premission or authorization from the creator. Only Solomon and Moses had permission from the Creator to make images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.50.208 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

11th and 12th commandments

At the last supper Jesus gave two more commandments Love God and Love thy neighbor I think they should be mentioned in the Christian section

They are already there in the OT ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" in Deuteronomy and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" in Leviticus), and it is the Jewish lawyer who quotes them to Jesus in Mark. The idea that he added them to the Ten Commandments is something of an urban myth. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrections on the Islam section

Could someone please change "Allah" for "God", as Allah is just the standart Arabic word for God, used by Arabic speakers of all faiths, regardless of their theological differences, besides that Islam insist that its God is the same God who sent Abraham, Moses, Jesus et al. Wikipedia's policy is to translate Allah to God and not doing is either incompetence or pushing the religious views of some Muslims or of some Christians.

Also, the mention of the Submitters should be deleted. The Submitters are a tiny, non-orthodox Islamic sect and the article needs not to mention the views of every sect, especially for such a small matter.

And finally, the article uses different translations for the Qur'an, namely Abdullah Yusuf Ali's and Rashad Khalifah's. It should harmonized (Wikipedia usually uses the un-edited version of Yusuf Ali's translation).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Year given to Moses

Just wondering, maybe I accidentally read over it, but what year were the 10 commandments given to Moses? B.C. what? Maybe the approximate year could be added if it isn't in the article? 71.194.76.97 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking a historical question about a legendary happening. About the best we can do is estimate the date that the earliest version of the 10 C's was written down, and even that will be highly imprecise. kwami (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible has some answers. I would say 1500 BCE is in the right ballpark. Jon513 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was in the year 2448 from the creation of the world. Since we now live in 5769 that makes it precisely the year 1312 before Common Era. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The trimillenial falsification of the 2nd Commandment

(this article has been published by American internet press: http://salem-news.com/articles/january312008/circ_paris_13108.php and has been the object of a lecture given 09.04.08 at the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC in the School of law of the University of Keele (R.-U.): http://nocirc.org/symposia/tenth/symposium08.pdf. At last, a summary has been published by the British medical journal: Sigismond. Letter to the Editor (01.15.08 : http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183746 (at the bottom of the page)

THE 2ND COMMANDMENT:

“... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to...” great-grandfathers,

FORBIDS SEXUAL MUTILATION (*)

John the Baptist and Jesus gave their lives for baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the “original” punishment, conceived to prevent any further “sin”. Numerous attempts of abolishing circumcision occurred, sometimes quelled by blood (Machabees). The most elaborated one was that of German Reform rabbis, in the middle of the 19th century, for socio-political and juridical reasons (a violence against the child, the custom isolates the Jews), and also four religious reasons: the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and thus the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice for men only, after his death, in Gilgal – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).

Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon both sex children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality. Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. Strikes and sexual mutilation accompany it, as shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus” (Ludwig Museum, Köln), where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin. Sexual mutilation castrates the youth from the specific organs of autosexuality. It had been imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement. After having freed them, Moses could not tolerate that some would carry on these barbarous customs. Thinking that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, he denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis, through the 2nd Commandment. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than genocide of his brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.

Similarly deeming circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community, orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents came back to circumcision, after twenty years resistance. But the “heresy” gained the United States where some practise non-mutilating nomination.

The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. Indeed, the following verses:

“... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generation...” (Exodus, 20: 5-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999),

are read as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but,

- if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction,

- the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9) has also been falsified; it rubs out the terms: “upon children”. How could the most sacred text of the Torah since carved in stone by God in person, have varied?! This blue-pencilling aimed at favouring the above described intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people and therefore impossible to falsify physically, whereas the Book of Deuteronomy, a book of priests, was easy to modify. The cut-making could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting circumcision, which had had to be abandoned in the jails of Babylone, back into force; it was a custom of the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar's worst enemies, of whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004).

- the text uses neither the double singular (the crime of the father), nor the double plural (the crimes of fathers), which, according to the orthodox interpretation, would designate criminality in general. The simple singular: “the crime of fathers”, refers to a precise well-known crime upon children, that can only be sexual mutilation,

- asserting that God punishes children for the crimes of fathers, the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the aberrant meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning irresponsible children and grandchildren. The just will not allow such interpretation; a jealous God is jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter,

- one could not understand why a punishment of criminality applied to the whole family would dead abate at a fourth generation of descendants. On the other hand, it is natural that the punishment of ascendants cannot be applied beyond great-grandfathers,

- it is unlikely that two commandments, the 2nd and the 6th: “Do not commit homicide.”, should have the same object,

- at the contrary, the 2nd Commandment brings out paedo-sexual criminality as very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population: children in the case in point. Justly locating sexual mutilation amongst crimes against creation (humanity), he punishes it more harshly than ordinary crime. For the first time in history, a legislator enacts an imprescriptible penalty, hitting the elderly years after their crimes,

- a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlightens it:

“If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either go up on my altar through degrees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there.” (this touch makes Moses a shrewd sexologist advocating capped penetration) (Exodus, 20: 21-23)

- at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” inflicted to defenders of their children; it instituted discrimination by self-proclaimed “elected”, the worst one since moreover an alleged identity discrimination through divine or rather diabolical order.

The meaning of the divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aims at sexual mutilation, the fanatic victims of Abraham's lie cleverly twisted it through sacrilegious introducing a nonexistent double meaning. But if they dared falsify the 2nd Commandment for boys, they gave up the excision of girls. Moses abolishes Abraham’s commandment because law may not speak against life. His 2nd and 6th Commandments make the Ten Commandments – the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man – a declaration of the human person’s very first, inalienable and sacred right: the right to body ownership. It forbids both the death penalty and mutilation of minors or adults without grave and strictly medical motive. We are requiring its inscription as article 1st of the Universal declaration of human rights.

This is a summary; read the whole article at http://intactwiki.org or

http://circabolition.multiply.com/journal/item/350/The_Ten_Commandments_and_sexual_mutilation_a_crime_against_creation

Sigismond (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Spare us the crap... I mean, this wonderfull and novel interpretation which just eluded the best minds of three millenia (or do you also assume they did this on purpose, so let's start a zionist complot theory?). Debresser (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

weight

Okay, I restored the fixes to the intro (one of the "references" merely repeated the claim is was supposedly supporting), but I think I was reverted for adding the italicized text to the following:

The phrase is generally understood to refer to the similar passages of Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21, but in the Biblical text itself the phrase has a closer correlation with a different series of commandments in Exodus 34:11–27. Some scholars therefore distinguish between an "Ethical Decalogue" of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and a "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34.

To me that seems useful, as it explains why scholars would bother postulating a second set of 10Cs. kwami (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Add another resource?

http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/interactive/commandments/

I wanted to nominate this as a cool resource for the external links section. Didn't think it would cause a huge fuss. Just thought it looked helpful. MissStickBug (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of Religions Not Fair

The religions described are 1. Judaism, 2. Christianity, 3. Islam. Why is this order used when there is a common old and new version of the interpretation of the 10 commandments for each, yet the significance for world population and Wikipedia readership (world population) is not like this. The order should be 1. Christianity, 2. Islam, 3. Judaism with a new section added for common ancestry. The way it's set up now is to take less significant information and putting it first. The more minor the need, the lower in the article references should be included. This is pretty logical.

Further, and perhaps more significant, this structure implies that some how Judaism came before Christianity and Islam. While technically correct, that is not a fair position from a Christian or Islamic point of view as those who believe in these religions see themselves as part of that ancient line and see Judaism as the tangent that did not follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.174.208 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything is best understood in its historic perspective, and chronologically the order is Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Therefore, any article trying to present information should discuss things in this order.

The second part of your argument is not important, because even if Christianity would not view itself as part of a tradition following from Judaism, it still chronologically comes after Judaism and has many things in common with it. Apart from that, it will probably be argued by many that it was instead Christianity that separated itself from Judaism, whether Christianity will acknowledge the fact or not. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that Judaism as such came before Christianity, but that Jewish use of the Ten Commandments came before Christian use. Christianity regards itself as the completion of Judaism, and acknowledges that the Old Testament came before the New. It is therefore reasonable to use chronological order rather than order of population. Unless of course you take the extreme Christian view that Biblical Judaism is either dead or represented only by Christianity, while Rabbinic Judaism is a new religion invented to spite Christianity. That is neither mainstream Christianity nor a neutral point of view. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk)

Murder?

The text on christian 10-cmds said:

5. "(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder"

This is probably a language translation caused confusion. My Swedish Bible says nothing like "murder". It says: "dräpa" which very vaguely is translated to "kill" in my Sw-En dictionary. "Dräpa" means more exactly "to kill by an act under the influence of a strong affect" (and not by deliberation). The trouble here is that the Lutheran Catechism (re)interpret this and other commandments not only as a prohibition against killing humans, but also a general prohibition against harming humans and an exhortation to support and aid them. Making a distinction between Catholic and Lutheran Ten Commandments shouldn't regard the formulation per se, but rather how the formulations are reinterpreted in the respective Catechisms. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See Killing and murder above before you make any more edits. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Phahh, read it yourself, and read my objection before giving off the answer of the evil bureaucrat! That's comment is supporting my language issue! Now, is it reasonable to maintain an erroneous distinction based on the language deficiency of English, not on a theological distinction? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I'm doing it another way. The distinction between catholicism and lutheranism here is some kind of original research, and really bad conclusion since it confuses theology with language issues. This is not according to wikipedia policies. Maintaining a factual error by bureaucratically refering to another section in the article, won't do. Behave better! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In stead of making degoratory remarks (like "Phahh" and "Behave better") you'd better read carefully the Killing or murder section referred to in Killing and murder above. It says clearly that there is a difference between the word used in "almost all Roman Catholic translations" on one side, and Protestant and Jewish translations on the other.

As for as original research is concerned, you statement that "this is probably a language translation caused confusion" now that is original research. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That answers nothing. Now, the section "killing or murder" is marked Template:Original research. I'll make a new heading below... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing or murder?

Again: why is it that someone's original research as regards to the language issues of hebrew vs. latin translations has become a theological issue reflecting in the content of the article making an erroneous distinction between the "Lutheran" and "catholic" interpretations of the 10 commandments? I have marked the section Killing or murder Template:Original research for this, but in fact the issue is: why has this section any theological implications at all? The section should be marked "of dubious value" or some such, but there is no such template. Why are we keeping this confusion of text vs. theological interpretation content? Do we really need to confuse the reader by keeping a distinction that is irrelevant for the article? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, while I'm reading it: I think the whole section "Controversies" needs checking. F.ex. more citations. The section Sabbath day refers to a real minor "controversy" between the 7th day adventists and the rest, but it cites only one primary source, otherwise trying to conceive a basis for itself by concocting a conclusion by citing the bible five times without any external source connecting them with each other, unless the source http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm does it in exactly that way. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The differences in translation have had theological consequences. This is a fact we - as an encyclopedia - must show. That's all. No confusion, nothing dubious, just a good article. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You say:

The differences in translation have had theological consequences.

I say: cite it! That lutheran/catholic difference in theology should certainly be cited, since I claim it is bogus, it's a falsarium. If the article misrepresents facts and makes WP:SYN, why is it "just a good article", no motivation? The article has issues. The article should primary treat the theology and elaborate on language issues afterwards, now it confuses language issues with theology, inappropriately synthetizing conflicts that don't exist? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And factually: the article was nominated "good article" in Aug 2006, but it failed. The article is not "good", it doesn't meet up to "good". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot delete the templates {{dubious}} nor {{or}}, the way you do. The issues must be resolved by adding proper sources. Just removing them without resolving the issues violates the policies of wikipedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You were right about that I should remove the dubious template. I misunderstood its meaning. When saying "just a good article" I didn't mean to say that this article is a good article in the Wikipedia sense. You misunderstood me there. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What can we do with these sources?

• http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
• http://www.deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/Thou-Shalt-Not-Kill.html

and especially

• http://www.forward.com/articles/6091/

Especially this last source seems to indicate that the difference is not so much between Roman Catholic and Protestant translations, but between older and newer translations. Apart from that, it can be used as a source for the greater part of the Killing or murder section, so we can remove the {{or}}. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Display controversy and numbering

The public display section begins with a discussion of the numbering used, implying that it is a significant - perhaps even the most significant - controversy relating to American public displays. To the degree that a public display numbering controversy exists it is secondary to the establishment issue. The discussion of the numbering issue should either be moved below discussion of the establishment controversy or deleted altogether.

Indeed, it would be nice to see citations to groups actively protesting the numbering system used in a public display. I know of no such group,but would be fascinated to read about them. The same section asserts, without citation, or indeed a thourough explanation, that removing the numbers from the decalogue display obviates sectarian concerns. This seems implausible. I imagine the spacing of the verses can imply a numbering even where such numbers are not explicitly written. Additionally, any display necessarily requires choosing a translation. Certainly a catholic, jew, or protestant can identify when a disfavoured translation is being used. Considering that a significant portion of the article discusses whether the 6th commandment prohibits murder or killing (to which I say - learn hebrew!), I imagine that simply removing numbers from a public display would not remove sectarian implications from the display. Simonus (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Judaism Splits 5 vs 5 (G-dly to Human vs Human to Human) NOT 4 vs 6

Although on the literal level it would seem that the 1st 4 are G-dly to Human commandments and the later 6 are Human to Human commandments, but Judaism actually splits it 5 vs 5. The explanation being that since G-d is a partner in creating a child Honoring ones parents is like honoring G-d. Rashi states this opinion clearly. It is the most common understanding of the split in Judaism and I have never even heard of a 4 vs 6 split in my life. --Danjew (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)