Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

POV fix

I removed text that claimed that most liberals claim the posting of the commandments on a government building violated the "separation of church and state" (and the statement that "separation of church and state is not part of the constitution" or whatever it was) and replaced it with "some liberals oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, arguing that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." and I wikified the link to the first amendment.

While posting the ten commandments is not literally "making a law" establishing a state religion, it could create a "slippery slope" situation that eventually entangles government in religion to a degree that the establishment clause is more likely to be violated. It is a rational position to presume that it is safer for the constitution for the government to "avoid the appearence" of impropriety by not posting religious symbols. I wonder how many Christian or Jewish groups would like to walk past a Ganesh or Buddha statue whenever they go to court? Probably they wouldn't. Religious neutrality is a critical element of American civil society, and reflects the reality of pluralistic religious faith. By acknowledging no religion as "true" or "correct" or "right" the government is actually honoring all of them, and the beliefs of every American, as equal.

It would also violate the Equal Protection clause for the religious beliefs of any citizen, including a belief that the ten commandments were of divine origin, or that the clearly religious commandments must be upheld to avoid angering a god, to be sponsored by the government by posting them as they commonly are on government buildings.

These positions better reflect the normative liberal view of the establishment clause, and I will see if it is possible to work them into the article as a description of these philosophies, without promoting them. Understanding positions that are contrary to your own can be an important source of personal intellectual growth.

I also explained the conservative/religious view of the posting a bit better, and deleted the reference to the Dershowitz article because 1) it was totally irrelevant (about same sex marriage, not posting the ten commandments), and 2)the editor who referenced it to support his POV argument that liberals only favor a separation of church and state when it suits their purposes either deliberately or accidently misunderstood Dershowitz's point. Dershowitz was arguing that government should be less entangled in deciding who could get married than it is now, and leave it to the individual religious to decide what marriages are acceptable. This would promote the separation of church and state, not undermine it. Because it was both POV, and reflected confused thinking, not to mention totally irrelevant, I simply removed it rather than trying to fix it.

--Hrodulf 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Nominee

I haven't edited this article at all, but I read through it and thought it deserved to be a Good Article so I took the liberty of nominating it. --NMajdan•talk 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped by again to take a quick look before someone reviews it or I get to it. First let me complement those who have worked hard on this article. It is thorough, detailed, and, by and large, in language a casual reader can understand. This is a major accomplishment considering the debates that have gone on here.

Having said this, I'm not sure whether or not we can call the article stable, seeing the amount of vandalism that has had to be reverted.

Second, I'd like to see the references improved here. We have a lot of informal ones, helpful to Christians, Jews and Muslims, but not helpful at all if someone wishes to look them up and doesn't know what these mean. Could someone do a more formal reference to specific editions, inline citation, etc. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently on hold. As CTSWyneken says, a few references need tidying up. Also, cites should be cited when it says . Iolakana|^T 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The prior requests weren't fulfilled which makes me think that the GA nomination wasn't taken seriously. Also, a recent change changed the american english to british english throughout the text and that concerns stability. To assess that point, maybe a poll as to which english should be used and why ... is it because the englishmen first translated the bible? Re-nominate for GA candidacy when these minor issues are resolved. Lincher 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Adultery

I think that it's worth mentioning that adultery varies in definition from one religion to another. For example, in Islam, adultery means sex out of marriage in general, not necessarily with a married woman. I think the same applies for Christianity.

Historical origin section

I'm making some changes to the Historical origin section.

1. Removed the first sentence. ("Some historians have argued[citation needed] that the Ten Commandments of Moses have a basis in ancient Egyptian beliefs and texts.") Since the "citation needed" has been there for a long time and no one has gone back and cited, it obviously needs some more research before it is included in the article.
2. Added a link to an online translation of Chapter 125 of the Papyrus of Ani so that you can see what it actually says.
3. Removed "...though one chapter of the Book of the Dead was found carved on the inside of the sarcophagus of Menthu-hetep who ruled around 2500 BCE. More interesting is that this carving cites, as its source, an original text which was written in 4266 BCE. during the reign of Hesep-ti." The point of this historical origin section should be about the part of the Book of the Dead that contains the "Negative Confessions" or lines similar to the 10C. Mentioning that one chapter of the book predates the Exodus by a few thousand years is irrelevant. The chapter that the removed lines refer to is LXIV (64). See [1] in the section Evidence of the antiquity of certain chapters to see the time period discussion of that early chapter (which includes talk about some mistaken attributions), then see [2] for the text of Chapter 64. That chapter, while it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, clearly isn't anything related to the Negative Confessions or the 10C. The Book of the Dead was not written all at once, so stating that one part was written in 4266 BCE doesn't mean that all of it was, and the way the sentences were phrased made it appear to imply that relationship, at least to me it did.
4. I left in what is now the last sentence, which refers to one of the relevant papyri being written 100 to 400 years before the Exodus. I don't know which papyrus that statement refers to. The Papyrus of Ani, which contains the Negative Confessions, is thought to be dated to the 18th dynasty (see [3]), which would put it right around the time that most religious scholars date the Exodus (see Dating the Exodus). So, it can't be referring to Ani. The Papyrus of Nu does have statements similar to the 10C, but I wasn't able to find a date for that one. I also don't know which other chapters of the Book of the Dead contain similar statements. So, while it's certainly possible (probable?) that some Egyptian texts that contained the similar statements predate the Exodus and the 10C, I don't know which ones, and don't know enough to be able to cite or remove that last sentence. So, if anyone else knows or has more information, feel free to help out.

Hopefully I haven't just messed up something that someone put a lot of effort into, I'm just trying to help improve the article.

Kylef81 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes made on 20 September 2006

I made the following changes to the article. If anyone objects to these, please let me know. The main goal of these changes was to start to reduce the overall article length and make it easier to read.

• Made several wording changes to shorten complex sentences or make them easier to read.
• Changed several in-text citations to "ref" citations and added a "References" section.
• Moved the etymology/translation section to a new "Terminology" section.
• Reformatted the "Text of the commandments"
• Most of the "Nature of the stone tablets" section was pretty much identical to this webpage: 10 Commandments – Crystalinks. I don't know which one came first, so, I reworded most of it to avoid violating copyrights (and also made it shorter and simpler).
• The "Breaking and replacement of the tablets" section had text identical to THE TEN COMMANDMENTS – Religion-Religions.com. Again, I don't know which came first, so I reworded it just in case.

These changes didn't reduce the article length too much (62k to 61k). But, I've only gone through the first part of the article so far.

Kylef81 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Summary of today's changes:

• Minor formatting changes.
• Additional in-text citations moved to ref citations.
• Thinking about what readers would be most interested in when coming to this article, I made the "Text of the commandments" the first section.
• Looking at the Table of Contents, it seems to me that there are too many sections that have short content. So, I have merged the remaining sections in "Narrative of reception" (which I think was a confusing title) and the "Terminology" section I made yesterday, into a new "History" section, along with an image of Moses with the Ten Commandments.
• Under the Jewish interpretation, #3, I removed the sentence about the four kinds of oaths that it prohibits. Someone added a "fact" tag a while back, and a source hasn't been added. I tried searching google for an original source, but all I found were copies of the Wikipedia article. If someone knows what the real source is, please add it back.
• Removed the fact tag from the "Samaritan understanding" section. Its source was actually linked to after the "text of the commandment." I've made that clearer with both of them pointing to that reference.

Hopefully, we will eventually be able to re-nominate for GA status. I'll keep working my way through the article.

Kylef81 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I hope to bring to the attention of Wikipedia, (the english version at least) that we are in an age when all sorts of changes are being made to the interpretation of the Royal Law, the Decalogue.

I must admit I just "jumped in" and attached a brief outline of AEMINPU Israelites, and then copied a translation i have made of the Ten Commandments that they follow from the original Spanish.

The founder, Ezequiel Ataucusi Gamonal wrote them in 1956, and i have included my translation of his testimony on my userpage (as well as my translation of the Royal Law). He is a rather controversial figure in his native Peru, a predominantly Roman Catholic country, where he a humble labourer congregated thousands and led other projects also, including FREPAP - a socialist democratic political party based upon the Ten Commandments and Fronteras Vivas a re-location programme taking people from the cities back to the jungle frontier areas of Peru (and other countries) to farm and live freely.

I realise that AEMINPU does not have as many members as Jewish, Muslim or Roman Catholics or many others but that it's srict adherence to the Law and Sabbaths from evening to evening, are familar with traditional Israelite beliefs, and belief in the Holy Trinity as more traditional Christians with Christ as the manifestation of the Lord Jehovah to show humankind how to follow the Law.

In response to Steve Kap's very polite deletion notice of my first entry on this page, I hope that as the Ten Commandments form the most sacred and important role in the faith of these Israelites ( Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;) I suggest that there should be some reference to the movement which I believe is legally recognised by most South American governments, or does Wikipedia only cover topics from its own language origins?Swordedge 16:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, Swordedge, there are thousands of religons that are offshouts of the Abrahamic tratition. The U.S. baptist alone must have dozens of off shots. I dosen't seem to me that it would add much to the general public if we listed the slight variations of the 10C for each realigous sect. I think the term "Minority point of view" and "Noteable source" are wiki terms that cover this. I know, noboby like to be exluded. Steve kap 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of 10 commandments

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

The Ten Commandments were not the say-all, do-all. There were other bits of philosophy, advice, and "paths" to follow. If you read most of the first part of the Book of John, you can see what sort of message was begin given. This part of John details the altruistic characteristics of Christ, which some say were more important that simply strictly following the Ten Commandments, alone. Nidht 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the criticism is easy to be found. The 1st is just a prononcment of authority. The "don't praise graven idols" one seems to be fighting yesterdays war. The "don't convet" ones at the end seems to be redundent, and a lot of focus on a small problem. And the 10C is far from being comprehensive. George Carlin does a good bit about the 10C (maybe that would be a good cultural ref).

But, I think this is all just POV. We could have a section about how some people think the 10C is the basis of all western law, and how other people think its not worth much, but I don't think it's so valuable. People have all sorts of opinions, we don't need to list them all in wiki, I think. Steve kap 11:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The laws in the western world strike me as being more similar to the Havamal than the 613 commandments that are listed in Exodus. This is obviously a topic that is very POV 195.153.45.54 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

>>> There are 613 commandments of which the first 10 were spoken by G-d directly to the Israelites and the other 603 were written down. To dwell on the first 10 is to fail to understand their context. Christians incorrectly believe that the Commandments are for them, when only the 7 Noahide laws are applicable. It is for this reason that they have no problem with idolic representations of a mythical Jewish man (Jesus) and knowingly desacrate the Sabbath (Friday/Saturday) with a sort of Sabbath on Sunday for which there is no scriptural authority. >>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.231.2 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 613 by the time you include the ones in Exodus 34 - which G-d states are part of the covenant which he has made with Israel. 195.153.45.54 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cooking a kid in it's mothers milk is believed by some to be about reminding people that no visiting guests or feast can be so important that you destroy your opportunities for the future. Others believe that it is a prohibition against eating meat and dairy in the same meal. 195.153.45.54 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New Vandalism

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

Is this in reference to someone changing either 'Thou shallt not covet your neighbours wife' or 'Thou shallt not commit adultery' into 'Thous shallt not bang your neighbours wife'? I heard rumours....

I checked and it doesn't seem to be there, yet it was apparently there today morning. Has someone sorted that out?

Postnote: Can someone verify the spelling of Shallt, is it shalt or shallt? :P I don't know for sure.

webjockey 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IT's Shalt.Kairos 08:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbering of Commandments

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

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

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

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

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

Nonal 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC) According to recent scientists researchs (e.g. : look at samaritans) it seems that the first jewish commandment is just an introduction. It would be helpful to study the fact it would have replaced an original tenth commandmant, just deleting it. I believe samaritan beliefs on commandments should take a bigger part in this article as it might be an older reading of the tables. It should be as big as the jewish one according to chronology and history. In order to justify my wish of changing in here, I whish you all to study Mount Gerizim history. Perhaps it's not THE place both for jews and christians, but ones destroyed a samaritan religous place twice and the others built some temple. It's reel strange for an unsacred place to have such an importance for the whom don't believe in the samaritans' 10th commandments.

In God's Name

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

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

REQUEST: Could somebody add the Muslim 10 commandments to the table? I tried, but I screwed it up and abandoned the edit. I don't get the table formatting commands.

The ten commandments table lists "Orthodox" as a column header but without any explanation of orthodox WHAT. Also it would be nice if the table headers were links to the named religions either within this article or to main articles on that religion elsewhere in the 'pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.218.201 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "kill" not "murder"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same Torah that gives the ten commandments also condones capital punishment by stoning and the conquering of the Holy Land by war. It would be attributing outright stupidity to whoever you might think put these documents together (which is even worse if it's God but is still bad if it's not) to think that killing in general is forbidden. It's pretty culturally insensitive to treat people as if they're stupid just because we may not have all the information on what they might have meant by a particular term in a particular linguistic context. Parableman 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ten_Commandments&oldid=101674253 there is a section Ten Commandments#Killing or murder on the various translations and their justifications. PJTraill 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Killing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian understanding section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Killing

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

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

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

Political Ramifications

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

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

Murder vs kill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take his point about WP:RS, and therefore accepted his edit, though I wondered about restoring it with instead of the reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to point out that FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE BIBLE morality is defined as obedience of divine command. This is relevant to the distinction between 'murder' and 'kill' because terminating human life on the command of G•d is not a criminal or immoral act no matter what the other circumstances. The bible is clear in putting forward that it's auctoritas is Divine and absolute, and that ALL morality is obedience to divine "mitzvot," or commandments, whatever they may be. Soch 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There it is, faith based morality laid bare. Steve kap 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC) "Everything I did, I did for God." -Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Steve kap 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

High Profile of Swedenborgianism aka The New Church

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

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

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

LEAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

where are the tablets?

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

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

Jesus' summary of the commandments

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

Spoken, not on tablets

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

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

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

Its the Hyksos that really introduce the concept of skilled administrators trained in reading writing and arithmetic, and in the diplomatic responsibilities of overseeing work.

There are several interesting things that happen when laws begin to be written down. First it implies a measure of literacy and enough social stratification that some people can afford to specialize in administrative duties. Administrative responsibilities are important in Egypt. Each of the various Gods temples acts as a sort of university specializing in law, engineering, medicine, skilled crafts, etc; There are war colleges, agricultural colleges, places you can go to learn how to run a mine, build a pyramid, oversee the aquisition of cedar from Byblos or build a boat. In terms of medicine there are licenses and certifications. There are written deeds to land and inheritences in the form of written wills. You can go to the Temple of Thoth and study mathematics. You can go to the temple of Ptah and study blacksmithing. You can devote yourself to the celebration of the teachings of Ptah hotep and learn how to construct a written law.

When Akhenaten shuts down all the temples of Thebes, all the administrative centers of Egypt, all its schools are essentially closed. When the Hyksos administrators leave, they take their written law with them, they take mathematics, medicine, diplomacy, skilled crafts of every kind and all of a sudden we get the Amarna letters, written in Akkadian rather than Egyptian, showing that without any laws the foreign influence of Egypt is collapsing.

The Egyptians carve their gods in stone, house them in an ark and place the ark in a sanctuary. The god the Sons of Israel carve in stone, house in an ark and place in a sanctuary is the written law. The written law is sovereign over all the gods because it regulates them. It says what is right and proper in terms of professional licenses and certifications of skilled craftsmen. Rktect 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Its not just the people of the Book, the Jews and Christians, Muslims and Mormons that get it wrong, there are lots of other religions including faithless godless atheists, and pagans whose idea of religion won't allow their beliefs compatability with a reverence for the benefits of a societal covenent to be law abiding, but reading the Law code of Hamurrabi and the writings of Ptah Hotep shows that by the time of the Exodus this was an idea whose time had come. Rktect 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

To understand the Ten Commandments you have to recognize that whats important about them is that they are carved in stone, housed in an ark and the ark is placed in a sanctuary. That is how the Egyptians treated their gods. They carved the image in stone, housed it in an ark and placed the ark in a sanctuary. Whats carved in stone are written laws. The written laws then command that thou shalt have no other gods before me. That means that the written law is claiming sovreinity over the spoken word of the pharoah making a significant inroad on the divine rights of kings.

It really doesn't matter what the ten commandments say, they are a symbol of a reverance for written laws that goes back to the law codes of Hamurrabi. In Egypt there are very modern codes for professionals such as doctors and lawyers and skilled craftsment that required them to be certified and licensed. The real ten commandments are diffused throughout the five books of the Pentateuch in the form of common law precedent. Genesis is full of different contracts, covenants, legal agreements, bound with blessings and curses, witnessed, ratified, revoked, ammended, tied into inheritances, conditions, penalties and more blessings and curses on those.

By making the written Law into a god which can be worshipped, celebrated, cursed and either followed or in the case of the outlaw cited as cause for placing evil doers under the ban it facilitates providing competent administrators with a reference.Rktect 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"To understand the Ten Commandments you have to recognize that whats important about them is that they are carved in stone.." Really? Says who? What evidence do you have to say that they were carved in stone? What gives you the authority to tell others what they need to reconize to understand anything?

Law in ancient Egypt

Palermo Stone: Old Kingdom annals stone, including reference to a periodic census including gold and fields, from at least the Second Dynasty. Although the monument itself dates to later in the third millennium BC, it indicates at least an ancient Egyptian belief in the deep antiquity of the census system, and this in turn demonstrates a need to record both personal and landed property, implying their transferability between persons

An early Old Kingdom inscription with a copy of a contract for the sale of a small estate, providing evidence for sale by consent

The Juridical Stela (Seventeenth Dynasty), an inscription bearing a copy of legal documents concerning a transfer of an administrative position, providing evidence for the bilateral nature of such agreements, in this case with a year allowed for the fulfilment of obligations

An Old Kingdom deed of conveyance, effectively a will, by a person named Heti, ensuring the maintenance of his heirs in perpetuity by turning his property into an endowment to provide for his own eternal cult, staffed by his heirs (such pious foundations secured inalienable status, much as the waqf or pious foundation in Islamic Egypt)

Papyrus Berlin 9010, an original manuscript from the Sixth Dynasty, preserving a dispute over inheritance, turning on the availability or not of witnesses: the key passage in the original may be translated 'if he does not produce the witnesses in whose presence this utterance was voiced, none of the said Weser's property shall be kept in his possession'

the letters of Heqanakht (early Twelfth Dynasty) as evidence for speculation on grain prices, relevant for the study of private property

inscriptions in the tomb-chapel of governor Djefahapy at Asyut (Twelfth Dynasty), preserving copies of contracts between the governor and the men appointed to maintain the offerings and rites in his chapel in perpetuity

Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 (late Middle Kingdom), a papyrus including a copy of a case brought by a woman against her father's estate, demonstrating a 'married woman enjoying a completely independent legal personality'

Papyrus Kahun II.1 (UC 32055, late Middle Kingdom), an original legal document in which a man pursues a debt owed his father

Papyrus Kahun VII.1 (UC 32037, late Middle Kingdom: see above)

Leather roll Berlin 10470 (late Middle Kingdom), an original legal document recording the involvement of the central administration (bureau of the vizier) in a local case concerning the transfer of rights to the labour of a working-class woman

the Duties of the Vizier (New Kingdom hieroglyphic inscription copies perhaps of a late Middle Kingdom original) documenting procedure and regulations in the bureau of the vizier

a papyrus from the time of Thutmose III, an original legal document recording the conclusion of a case in which an appeal is dismissed

the inscription in the tomb-chapel of Mes at Saqqara (Nineteenth Dynasty) recording a long dispute over inheritance of land, with reference to land documents in the central administration document stores: this is the most extensive legal inscription surviving from ancient Egypt

Deir el-Medina ostracon Nash 1 (British Museum ESA 65930, Ramesside Period) recording a local case concerning the workforce of the king's tomb, as in the competence of the vizier

the Tomb Robbery Papyri of the Twentieth Dynasty, with reference to the king as ultimate judge the Harim Conspiracy Papyri of the Twentieth Dynasty, recording a case of treason, the attempt on the life of Ramesses III

the Messuia dossier (late Eighteenth Dynasty), a group of papyri, original legal documents on the hire of services by various individuals, in the form of sale of labour of two working women: the papyri are not the work contracts themselves, but copies of deeds of discharge, recording that the tasks have been accomplished

the Peace Treaty between Ramesses II and the king of the Hittites, the earliest international peace treaty, preserved in versions in both Egypt and the Hittite capital Boghazkoy (in modern Turkey)

the Dakhla Oasis Stelae (Twenty-second Dynasty) as examples of the oracle in legal contexts after the New Kingdom Rktect 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"It really doesn't matter what the ten commandments say" Really? Its seems to me, in a article about the ten C, it matters quite a bit what they say, or at least to tell about what people think they say and why.

Its not important what they say, its important that they say it in writing.

Its the concept of a written law that can be refered back to years later, rather than a spoken edict establishing things like distributions of land and inheritences and standards of measure that are subject to change as a new dynasty comes to power.

For purposes of comparison, its as if in the United States someone were to decide that an executive could make his own laws without regard for what the Constitution and or Congress had established as the law.

The removal of regulation tends to leave a state of uncertainty and confusion that makes it impossible to govern or do business effectively.

You can change any given law if you do it through an orderly process of ammendment by skilled administrators, but if you have a system where all it takes to make you a slave instead of a free man is the decree of a pharoah and then someone else comes along and creates a system where thats against the law and in fact the law comes first before anything else its reasonable to suppose that all those in jepordy of such a decree might form a covenant among themselves to agree to that. Rktect 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"By making the written Law into a god .. administrators with a reference". Really? Do you have any evidence for this statement? Have you compared the actions of administrators before and after the delivery of the 10C, and found that those after have more authority? They day before Moses received the 10C, was there a great debate among his people on, for example, weither or not murder was wrong?Steve kap 12:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of the common law as being a consensus of the community as interpreted by skilled administrators is still with us in the form of Sharia Law. Similarly its with us in the form of the precepts of Ptah Hotep, our common heritage of norms, nores, covenants, attitudes, values, sayings and precepts that orinary people understand.

If you tell people that the law permits kidnapping, torture, murder, holding without rendition (slavery), exhorbitant tithes or taxes, and no rights or benefits then sooner or latter the people will withdraw their consent to be a part of a society that applies those kinds of injustices to its citizens. Rktect 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to atheist site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JDWolff, I don't get it, we agreed to add this, right? Wasn't that the concensis above, including your comment? In going thru the history, I thought it was just deleted by accident (with no discussion, at least), thats why I re-added it. Maybe you just mis-remebered the history? I'd just as soon no re-debate this. Steve kap 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim that view is notable? Is there really nothing more recent than 1983? Can the author of that article claim to represent most atheists the way the Pope represents Catholicism? This sounds a lot like a WP:WEIGHT problem. Also, the external links section is perhaps the worst place to advance a POV.

I deliberately decided against using my first name when I created my Wikipedia account. I will address you as Steve kap if you so desire. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this group is notable, as I've stated, they are the ones that sued about the statue of the 10C in the courthouse (in Texas, I think), which relates to a section of the article. Also, they were just in the Suprem Court challenging parts of the "faith based initiative". In reporting the story, ABC news ref. to them as an the most notable aeithis group in the U.S. or something like that (can't remember). Not exactly like the Pope, but, Muslims and Jews don't have an equivelent of a Pope, but they still have there world view, and they are respresented, as well they should.

As far as the date, 1983, I'm not sure where you got that date. If you can find a more recent ariticle, great. I'm not sure if that an issue, I still use a calculus book written in 1970's . But if there is a more recent article, great.

I think a several parapgraphs might be undue weight, I think a link is more like minority mention. Not sure how to get less obtrisive than a link, except to leave out atheists all together, and that has its own problems, a point which I've tried to make "ad nuseum" as you've said.

This all seems like old ground to me, except the date, thats a new one. But I'd be happy to re-hash if you think we should. Steve_Kap will be fine, thanks. Steve kap 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy in the US

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

Translation specification

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

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

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

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

The table "Division of the commandments" seemed to switch inconsistently between "your" and "thy". I have changed all occurrences of "your" to "thy". (If there was a good reason for the seeming inconsistency, feel free to change it back and please explain here.) SpectrumDT 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kill vs murder

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

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

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

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

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

Umm...FDuffy...do you really believe what you wrote here? I've added appropriate {{fact}} tags to your ludicrous assertions. Tomer^talk 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Further, the motive that you ascribe to your opponents in this debate doesn't hold water, I think. You claim their motive to advocate “kill” over “murder” is to demonstrate a contradiction. But this would be completely un-necessary. Contractions abound with either interpretation. The example of Num 32 is the one that comes to my mind, where Moses ordered the killing of all captive midianites: men, women, children, infants, the elderly, all except the virgin females, 32 to of which were offered as “heave offerings”. So no need to parse words to find contradictions, maybe your opponents have other motives, maybe honest ones. Steve kap 10:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking the debate to the roots reveals that it isn't a prohibition against killing or even murder, its a prohibition against killing in a manner which isn't right and proper. You can execute, you can kill in war, you can put whole populations under the ban and murder, death, kill everything that walks or crawls, you can even sacrifice a life as long as you do it properly. God kills all the time, Moses kills, taking a life by accident is different than thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ... The root ratsach has the sense of thou shalt not measure the life of a man as you would a goat.

Ratsach is used only a few times in the OT. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deut. 19, and Joshua 20-21, it is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call manslaughter, or negligence; but it seems that there is more to the matter. Passing by places where the word is used but there are no contextual clues (Is. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2), we have this:

In Judges 20:4, it describes the killing of a woman who was in a house that was beset upon by night by a gang of evil men.

In 1 Kings 21:19, the Lord rhetorically asks Ahab if he has ratsached. This is after Ahab has concluded a plot to do away with Naboth by having two fellows say they have heard Naboth blaspheme. (This word also describes Ahab in 2 Kings 6:32.)

In Job 24:14, it describes one who in the light sets upon the poor and the needy, and is a thief at night.

In Ps. 62:3, it describes the fate of someone who is not prepared for what will happen to them, for they have no foundation in God. In Ps. 94:6 it describes the wicked who kill the widow and the stranger -- those who are helpless and disoriented.

In Prov. 22:13, it describes something a lion will do to the slothful man. Barker fusses on this verse quite a bit when he tries to debunk the "murder" definition (for of course lions cannot "murder" anyone!), and he has a point; but he misses the more important point. This verse, we shall see, is the key to the whole puzzle!

In Hos. 6:9, it is applied to priests who commit iniquity, with a comparison to a troop of robbers waiting for someone.

Taken together, we can discern a simple definition of ratsach: It refers to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal -- which means either 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as one waits for prey. We have no difficulty or contradiction in Scripture with this verse, or with places where God declares judgment of death upon men.

The root ratsach has the sense of thou shalt not measure the life of a man, as a lion would a goat. ratsach What that really doesn't take into account is the premptive strike, ie; killing to prevent killing, defensive killing, implying the killing of a man as a goat would a lion... with a hired dog. A similar root ratsah has the sense of delight in vengence; thou shalt not kill with delight. Rtsiyn refers to Reshpu, a Syrian god of war. Thou shalt not kill as a Syrian. Ritspah Thou shalt not kill as a woman. Rktect 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in the table

some ones vandalised the section in the table

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

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

is the vandalism about someone putting "he who smelt it dealt it" in the table? (70.49.221.240 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Protestant Connection with Dispensationalism

Many Protestants do not endorse dispensationalism, and some even find it insulting to be treated as if they do. There are plenty of theological systems that interpret the relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament in a way that amounts to rejecting the ten commandments as immediately binding on Christians while affirming that the general principles behind them are morally important nonetheless. You don't need dispensationalism for that. All you need is Jesus' juxtaposition between "it is said..." and "but I say...", where he appears to be indicating that Torah commands don't just apply to his followers the way they do under the Mosaic covenant.

On the other hand, there are plenty of evangelicals who do not take such a line to begin with, whether dispensationalist-influenced or not. My own impression is that many evangelicals do take the ten commandments to be binding on Christians, even the Sabbath command (although they think it's been transposed to Sunday).

My suggestion is to remove the reference to dispensationalism altogether or at least to indicate that there is much more variety among evangelicals. Covenant theologicans and new covenant theologians present a different grounding for similar views or may have very different views altogether, which leaves the section on this sounding thoroughly inaccurate. Parableman 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Language, Alphabet?

Does anyone have an argument or theory as to the actual language spoken, and specific alphabet used, in writing down the original Ten Commandments? It is an interesting question, but I have no training or experience to address it. The archeological dating of the Exodus and Biblical Chronology of the Event at Mount Sinai is still widely debated by Scholars from anywhere to as early as 1830 B.C.E. to as late as perhaps 1120 B.C.E. But in any case, this time-window predates the Archaic Biblical Hebrew language by one to several centuries. There is Proto-Sinaitic script some date to about 1500 B.C.E., but at this point, the words are undescipherable. Any thoughts? Steube59 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is a collection of many books written at different times. None of the books of the Pentateuch are written within centuries of the events discussed. Many of the books are borrowed from ancient tales preserved is Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian and the oral traditions of those languages.

Greek, Coptic, Aramaic texts were matched up and often parts of both were included giving slightly different readings. Ken Kitchen does his dating for the Exodus as established by textual artifacts such as the price of slaves and the form of Contracts along with geopolitical context as c 1350 BC +/- 100 years

There is no event at mount Sinai. Modern archaeology devolves Mt Horab from the stations of the Exodus and the Egyptian artifacts from that period at TimnahRktect 23:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Septenary system of units fully compliant with week and Sunday

Here: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Septimalisation is described geometrized septenary system of units, that is fully compatible with Ten Commandments, especially with Commandment about keeping seventh day holy. This system is better than SI, because in this system exists only one day unit with septenary multiples/submultiples, while in SI exists unnecessarily several base units that shares common distance dimension along axis of any dimension such as X,Y,Z, or T.83.19.52.107 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As an undergrad, when I got "meters" on one side of the equation and "seconds" on the other, I thought I did my math wrong, turns out that I just never learned "Septimalisation"!! But seriously, this is just madness, and I encourage all editors that read this to to the Septimalisation page and vote for deletion. Steve kap 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I DO know the laws of general relativity, and you are an idiot.Steve kap 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are performing unholy blasphemy against holy proposal of introduction of God's septenary system into everyday use again, and you are trying to fight this someone's anonymous holy proposal by mongering people to delete this article. I suspect that you will rather overthrow week and Sunday than will be fully obedient to its principle extended to its fullness, finally performing disobedience to God in this matter by reintroducing occult measurements originated from there: [4] everywhere.83.5.30.201 13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Septimalisation and general relativity

Each of you that want to delete this http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Septimalisation article think that meter, kilogram, second, and kelvin cannot be transformed into each other. This is not true, because you don't know laws of general relativity and due to this lack of knowledge you might want to delete this article: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Septimalisation , because you don't know nothing about geometrized unit system described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system, that allows deriving for example meters, kilograms and kelvins from second, using c, c^3/G i c^5/(G*k) conversion factors. Sadly, you potential deletionists don't know nothing about general relativity, that permits such operations. In general relativity meters, kilograms, seconds and kelvins are on equel footing, because they all have dimension of distance, if you don't believe please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone Time is just another dimension, such as length, width and height.

For scientific proof, I cite relevant fragment from article about geometrized unit system placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system

Definition

In geometric units, every time interval is interpreted as the distance travelled by light during that given time interval. That is, one second is interpreted as one light-second, so time has the geometric units of length. This is dimensionally consistent with the notion that, according to the kinematical laws of special relativity, time and distance are on an equal footing.

Energy and momentum are interpreted as components of the four-momentum vector, and mass is the magnitude of this vector, so in geometric units these must all have the dimension of length. We can convert a mass expressed in kilograms to the equivalent mass expressed in meters by multiplying by the conversion factor G/c². For example, the Sun's mass of 2.0×10³⁰ kg in SI units is equivalent to 1.5  km. This is half the Schwarzschild radius of a one solar mass black hole. All other conversion factors can be worked out by combining these two.

The most useful conversion factors are listed in the table below. To convert from SI units to geometrized units, multiply by the given factor; to go the other way, divide.

quantity	factor	numeric value
time	c	3.00 × 108 m/s
mass	G/c2	7.43 × 10−28 m/kg
charge	(G kC ) 1/2 / c2	8.62 × 10−18 m/C
momentum	G/c3	2.48 × 10−36 s/kg
energy	G/c4	8.26 × 10−45 m/J
power	G/c5	2.75 × 10−55 s/J
temperature	G k/c4	1.14 × 10−67 m/K

The small numerical size of the last few conversion factors reflects the fact that relativistic effects are only noticeable when large masses or high speeds are considered.

83.5.30.201 09:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems out of place for some reason, or is it just me? ImprobabilityDrive 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not out of place, this describes and defends reasonability of creation of SEPTENARY measurement system fully compatible with Ten Commandments in matter of day and week.83.5.75.21 11:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-organized

I removed the division from the two extended quotes from the New Revised Standard Version, and made the Division of the commandments section a sub section of the Text of the Ten Commandments section. This seems logical because dividing the extended quotations is POV (since various religions divide the commandments differently), and having the Division of the commandments section so far away from the actual text made it more difficult for readers to ascertain the veracity of the abbreviated commandments in the table showing the divisions. Hope this meets approval. ImprobabilityDrive 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Public monuments in the US

Is it really necessary to have two pictures of the same stone? Thedarxide 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not literally the exact same place, but they are the commandments. One of them is telling about the one that caused some trouble in that university, and the other is just there. The article is actually kinda dull on pictures. GloomySunday 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'New' Commandments

This might be a little controversial, but shouldn't we at least make some mention of the Commandments drawn from the 2005 Channel 4 survey?