Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reference by Jesus

I think this should be deleted:

and condensed them into two general commands in another:

‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
— Matthew 22:34–40

because it is not related to the Ten Commandments. For Jews, perhaps for Jesus too, there are 613 commandments; here he seems to be summing up not the Decalogue but "the law" in its entirety, by quoting two commandments that are not part of the ten commandments (and which many Pharisees also considered the most important). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The 613 comes from Jewish interpretation God never said break this into 613 commandments--68.171.233.249 (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. The concept of 613 commandments is first discussed in the Talmud. But it is an approximation of the number of specific laws in the Pentateuch. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

rrr, but I think you might missing something here. The test in question was under the heading "Christian Tradition". Not the Jewish tradition, the Christian tradition. Its a widely held view by Christians that the 10 commandments, and purphaps other commandments, were summed up, replaced, by Jesus by these two. That's their tradition. Steve kap (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So please provide a secondary source that states clearly that this is what Christians believe. JFW | T@lk 05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

We're facing the interesting situation that two editors thoroughly misunderstand WP:BRD. To summarise:

The external links that I removed were either redundant or covert restatements of someone's POV about the 10C and contribute nothing further to the article. They therefore fail WP:EL, and I think they could only be reintroduced if and when someone can justify their existence vis a vis that policy.
I first removed the links on 3 August. They were then reinserted twice by Steve kap and now once by Kwami.
According to BRD, the person who reverts the original edit is required to open a discussion why the initial edit was not reasonable. So far, neither SK nor Kwami have tried to do this.

I will only participate in a discussion about the external links if they are indeed justified with direct reference to WP:EL. I will not respond to allegations of bias or whatever have you, as you have done in earlier discussions. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems I misunderstood BRD. It doesn't matter greatly. We need a discussion about the external links because I have been challenged about their removal. So please comment here. And don't reinsert the links. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I also suspect that Steve kap and Kwami will undo any bold edit I make to this article because they are still sore from our disagreement about RD or whatever it is meant to be called. Please prove me wrong by conducting a constructive discussion. JFW | T@lk 10:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Ah, I'm glad to see that you now understand BRD, but disappointed to see that since it doesn't support you, now we shouldn't follow it. So, once again, rules are only to be followed when they support what you want, and otherwise ignored. There's a word for that, but it's not polite to use it on talk pages.

You may well be justified in your edit. But per the rule you keep quoting, you need to justify it before deleting the links again. — kwami (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is: why do we need these links? I think none of them are any good. Could you tell me why we need parallel articles from two ancient encyclopedias (1911 Brittannica and the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) and the current Brittannica, a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this could be discussed in the article body), another encyclopedia (this time a Catholic one) and some opinion piece from someone at the Freedom From Religion Foundation? That was the reason I removed the links and I wish that rather than reverting me, SPA Steve and yourself could have given due consideration to the need for each link. JFW | T@lk 10:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you're a hypocrite: The rules need to be followed when that supports your POV, but should be ignored when they don't. Edit warring is acceptable when you do it, but not when others do it—even if you're violating other rules such as BRD when you do so. The point is that for you, the ends justify the means, which is rather ironic given the topic of this article. — kwami (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. Now are you going to justify the external links that you reinserted? JFW | T@lk 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling you out on inappropriate behaviour is appropriate: you have repeatedly asserted that the rules apply to people you disagree with, but not to you. I don't care much about the links, though I have asked on the relevant forum about the EB. (The guidelines aren't very clear.) The reason for my revert was because your revert was contrary to the interests of working together as a community, which is what WP is supposed to be. — kwami (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have conceded that I misread BRD. Making personal attacks is not very nice. If you don't care about the links when why revert me simply to "expose" my so-called hypocrisy. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consesus to remove these links. There was no talk to remove these links. Either add these link back, our make your contempt for other editors, for the process of talk and consesus, plane for all to see, by your inaction. I will be glad to have the debate once you come back in line with the rules that the rest of us follow. Steve kap (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

JFW, you've admited a mis-reading of BRD, that shows good will. I would suggest that you add the links back in, as a continuation of good will, and as a signal that, hence-for, we are all going to play by the same set of rules. Maybe then would could have a good, honest, debate about the merits of this issue. Or, I could just revert, it up to you. Steve kap (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you both to clarify why each link is necessary. Threatening to revert just because I am reluctant to show you any kind of goodwill (especially after accusations of hypocrisy) sounds like WP:POINT to me. Why do we need external links to four other encyclopedias, the Catholic Catechism, and a personal rant from someone at the FFRF? JFW | T@lk 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

rrr, I don't get it JFW. It seemed you admitted you we wrong, that you should have tried for consensus before re-inserting your change. I thought you'd want to do the honorable thing and revert. My mistake. I'll be glad to have a discussion. But I must insist that we all play by the same set of rules; you can not get a change in by revert war, you need discussion, even consensus. So, untill we come to some agreement, the links stay. Am I wrong in this? Steve kap (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see someone making an argument for the four links to (often ancient) encyclopedias, though I don't think they're particularly helpful or necessary. But that "editorial" from FFRF website doesn't really add any value. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jayjd, even if you don't think those views are valid, even if you disagree, isn't it educational for you and maybe others to know what people you disagree with think? For example, if you meet a secular person, had a debate, wouldn't you want to know where he is coming from? Also, just for ref, this particular sight has been debated before. I think I showed the group was NOTEABLE (they are one of the largest secular advocate groups in the U.S., and that it was RELEVENT (they brought several of the cases against the display of the 10C). I think thats all thats need for wiki standards. I, for one, like to see what each of the group think, Jews, Catholics, non-religous alike. And its just a few lines. People can click them or not, up to them. Seems not unlike other external links on other pages. I welcome your responce. Steve kap (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I "don't think those views are valid" or that I "disagree" with them. And why on earth would you assume that I wasn't a "secular person", much less hadn't met "secular people", or would have a "debate" with a "secular person" on this or any other topic? Stop trying to personalize this discussion with irrelevant judgments about fellow editors. The link is a non-notable editorial which adds nothing to our understanding of the Ten Commandments. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

True, Jayjd, you din't say they view were not valid. Looks like I mistook you. And, true, I formed the opinion that your not secular, but that was a jump to a concusion, my mistake. And I will try to stop personalizing, good point there.

Lets start again, you say the link adds nothing (nothing of value, I presume). But don't you think knowing various people think, influential peole like the head of the FFRD is valuable? It's valuable to me. But ofcourse thats a matter of opinion. But why don't you think its valuable? As to "noteable", the group is certainly noteable, they have were one of the key litigants apposing the "faith based initiative". It just seems overall that we have a lot of opinions expressed on this page that the 10C are a source of morals. It seems to be a bit a balance to show that some people disagree. Not so many, but some. I think thats valuable. As to "adds nothing to our understand..", well, it added to MY understanding. Now, you might think its a misunderstand, I don't know. But the point is, we don't all "understand" the same things about a subject as complex as this. So, a little discent, a little voice going the other way, I think think thats very valuable. I invite your reply. Steve kap (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What "lot of opinions" in the article do you think expresses the view that "the 10C are a source of morals"? What makes you think this specific individual's editorial is notable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question Jy, and thank you for engaging on the issue. As to your first question, "They are recognized as a moral foundation..." is from the 1st pharagraph of this article.

As to your 2nd question, this person is a former leader of the FFRF, one of the most infuential groups of its kind. And the same ideas are expressed elsewhere, they(the idea that the first 4 of the 10C have nothing to do with morality, and the others are, say, wanting),really are in the non-theistic zeitgeist, C. Hitchens expressed this in his best seller, same for Dawkins. They are a staple responce by atheists (say, the Texas "The Atheist Experience") to the question "how can athesits have morality without the bible/ without the 10C".

In case anyone is tempted to call this the view of a "fringe" minority, I'd point out that the non-religous out number, say, those of the Jewish faith, by about 50 to 1. I invite your reply. Steve kap (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, you mean the statement in the lead. Are you, then, disputing the influence the 10 Commandments have had over Western thought for the past 2,000 years or so? Whether or not one agrees with the 10 Commandments, or with religion in general, it would seem rather absurd to claim that this is untrue or even undue, given Christianity's dominance in the West during that time (and now increasingly in places like Africa). Regarding FFRF, what does "one of the most influential groups of its kind" mean? The claim for notability ("influential") is unsourced and vague, and the qualifiers ("one of the", "of its kind") are huge. The author herself doesn't seem particularly notable, and her editorial seems more like personal testimony than reasoned argument (the author, for example, talks about her husband's reaction). And finally, please don't bring up any more specious arguments about the "non-religous out number, say, those of the Jewish faith, by about 50 to 1". The 10 Commandments are part of the Christian Bible, and there are 2 billion Christians in the world; and more to the point, this individual's editorial does not represent all non-religious people in the world, so please don't make arguments premised on that pretense. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I disputing the infulence of the 10C over 2k years? No, not at all!?! I'm saying that some people don't see them as a good moral framework, the FFRF for example, and other like minded.

What does "most influentail of its kind" mean? It means its a very large, infuential, group of secularlist. They are the ACLU of church/state mattters. They are the largest group to take on that role. You can read the Wikipedia article on them. (presumably they already had the "notable" arguement!).

Is the author notable? Well, as founder of a notable organization, I'd say so...

As to "50 to 1", as you must have read, that was avoid any notion that the non-religous are in any way "fringe". Yes, there are more Christians in the world; 33% Christian, 14% non-religous, .25% Jewish (Wikipedia sources). That makes the non-religous a minoriy, but not a particulary small one. And no, one article doesn't represent EVERY non-religous person, any more than an interpretation of the Tora represents the view of the entire Jewish minority. As this is an article about a religous subject, I agree; they (non-religous) should NOT be in the forefront, by I don't think they should be ignored either. Do you? I invite your reply, and am greatful to have a debate on the subject Steve kap (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That non-notable editorial adds nothing to our understanding of the Ten Commandments, except that some atheists don't think it's a good moral guide, which everyone already knows. See Drmies comments below, where I will continue any required discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I've given evidence that the ORGANIZATION is notable, and the AUTHOR is notable, must the very aricle be notable, all by itself, as well? For example, if a noval was the subject, and a book review was the link, would it not be enough that the book review be notable? Would the specific review be notable as well? Clearly thats not UNIVERALLY the standard, why should it be in this case?

As to "every one know" that atheist don't see the 10C as a moral guide, do you have any evidence of that? My exerience has been much to the contrary, religous people seem quite suprised to learn that, say, atheists dont' have much respect for the 10C. For example, I can point to the debate between C. Hitchens an Ann Widdecombe, Widdecombe seems quite supprised that Hitch didn't recognized the goodness that she sees in the 10C. As educated as she is, she seemed to take for granted that even an athesit would see what was obvious to her, that the 10C was the foundation for anyones moral life.

So, there is some evidence, I welcome your reply99.144.118.109 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Jayjd, where we last left off, you seem to saying that the ARTICLE itself need to be notable, not just the author and the orginization presenting, I countered that that's not generally. And I presented so arguements supporting that veiws are interesting. Any responce? Do you agree with a) or b)? Or both? I invite your reply. Steve kap (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review my previous comment. I'm not sure why you're still posting here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ahh, quite right! When one can get one's way by revert war and majority rule, when one side can just declare consensus, why bother with reasoned argument? Still, I thought you might have some interesting points. My mistake Steve kap (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

These are arguments that are always advanced when people insist they want an external link onto Wikipedia. If the group's perspective was truly relevant then their opinion should be in the article body, not tucked away in the external links section. I would like you to point out when the consensus was reached that FFRF was notable. If that is what was achieved by consensus I would not object to a section that discusses this viewpoint in detail, with responses from opponents if available. I think, however, that the FFRF action against the Ten Commandments is predominantly against the public display of said commandments, which is already discussed in the article. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see I see JFW!!! First the FFRF had to go because 'it had nothing to do with the article'. But when it turns out it does, THEN it has to go because the tie in "..is already discussed in the article"!!!! That seems much like the 'if others want a change, others need consensus, but if others want to undo JFW's change, others need consensus'!!! Keep'em coming!!!Steve kap (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one cannot win against superior number, exp if the opponent refuses to engage on the issue (except you Jy, thanks for trying to at least trying to engage the subject), and when the other side decides to change the rules when it suits them, or simple to break them openly without a care. So, I'll take sollice in that anyone can read the "debate" here and judge for themselves. You win! Steve kap (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop ranting and making personal attacks and explain why the FFRF link (and the others) need to go in the external links section rather than being integrated into the article content. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, why should I? I mean, it rigged right? Your change get inserted and re-inserted and re-re-reinserted before any talk, let alone consensus, right? Your change stick UNLESS THERE IS A CONSESUS TO REMOVE, yet any other change is REMOVED unless THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO KEEP?? You feel free to declare consensus whenevery YOU feel it, by whatever definition suites you, right??? As to "personal attack", sorry, but I feel I have every right to point out that you have one set of rules for yourself and another for others. If people take that as a reflectin of your charator, I can't help it. Your behavior is at fault, not my description of it. If you want to avoid charges of hypocrity, don't hold others to rules that you don't follow. As to "rant", I noticed you tend to use that word toward any statment that you disagree with. You would do better to address the substance rather than your preception of the tone. Or, rather, your misrepresentation of it. I'd like to be done with this, and leave you to your majority rule. But I'll continue if you want. Steve kap (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in: the links that were most recently removed are somewhat interesting from a historical point of view, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good initial tertiary source--but of course it's completely outdated. Other links suffered from the same weakness, and the FRFF link, that's just some opinion piece with no particular relevance here. In short, given that WP is not a repository of links (well, it is, but it shouldn't be), the removal is completely justified, never mind who begun what. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, Drmies. Just my ignorance, but, what is wrong having links in general? And links the experess opinios specificly? I guess I felt having a link would be a good way to get people to other points of view, without being to intrusive in the article. I mean, we could have a paragraph in the "controveries" section, talking about how "the new atheists" and other seculare groups don't see the 10C as a "moral foundation.." in the same way religous groups do. Moreover, I'm concerned that the aricle is slanted toward the views of the religous, which might be natural, religous people might be more interested in editing religous subjects than the non-religous. I'd welcome any suggestions. Steve kap (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. This is an encyclopedia, not a literate version of Crossfire. Links are not there to give different points of view, they are there to enhance the possibility of finding knowledge, not necessarily opinion. The Brittanica and the Catholic Encyclopedia don't necessarily give points of view, though they do present things in a particular way, no doubt--but they're also a century old. That a certain section of the population does not adhere to the Ten Commandments, that some loathe them, that some Christians think they're silly, that Buddhists have no use for them--I hate to break it to you, but that is trivial. What do you want the article to say, "Atheists think the Ten Commandments is a bunch of crap"? Seriously, that 'seculare groups don't see the 10C as a "moral foundation.." in the same way religous groups do' is so obvious that it's trivial. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course its an enclopedia! and you are free to "break " any thng to me that you wish!! Sorry, I don't understand the change in tone.. I was really just asking, maybe there is a general "no no" against exteranl links. May you thought I was sacastic? Didn't mean it that way at all.

You say its trival because it "obvisous", but I dont' think it is. There is no particular reason that non-religous person might not think the 10C are wonderful, the basis of moral life, in the same way, for example, that many non-christians, many athesits will point to "the surman on the mount" as good moral teaching. In any case, I think its the PARTICULAR REASONS that they are not impressed by the 10C that is interesting.

I think think a good, modern encysclopedia would have views on both side. For example, the article on Jerry Falwell has links to articles that supported him, and others that didn't. I think makes the article richer, putting the subject in a social context. Does it hurt anything? Doesn't it add something? I welcome your replySteve kap (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

<--I'm not sure if I can explain it any more. It's not about pro or con. A social context is something, sure, but an encyclopedia is not a collection of view points. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

rrrr, well, you could respond to my points, that might help explain your thinking more. Forgive me, but if you can't support your position....what, I should just accept it?

I do agree that an encyclopedia should JUST be about pro and con, not JUST a collection of view points. But I think that's quite different from being DEVOID of presenting various view points, true? Shoudl an article about, say, the ERA ammendent say NOTHING of the viewpoints of the supporter and detractors? Steve kap (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it significant that, say, Buddhists think nothing of the Ten Commandments? What does that possibly add to anything?. And if I'm not responding to your points, as you say, it's because some of those individual points, in my opinion, just don't pertain. What you, or Jerry Falwell, or your club think of the Ten Commandments is neither here nor there. If you want a discussion on the pros and cons of the Ten Commandments, start a blog. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"How is it significant that, say Buddists think nothing of the 10C?". You got me on that one, I just don't know that answer to that. Maybe its not..... And, of course, my point on Jerry Falwell, that was an ANALOGY! It had nothing to do with HIS views on the 10C!!! It had to do with how pro-con is handled in Wikipedia, and in encyclopdias in general. Steve kap (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So we have now veered from the individual merits of each external links into a discussion about the general purpose of encyclopedias. We have heard all arguments, and there have now been numerous editors who have come out against insertion of these links (Jayjg, Avraham, Lisa, Tbhotch). Despite requests, neither Kwamikagami nor Mr Steve Kap have provided a convincing argument why we should use the external links section to provide perspectives that have not already been discussed in the context of the article body. JFW | T@lk 04:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In my case, that's because I'm not arguing for them. I'm merely asking you to follow the rules you ask others to follow. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that I have ignored the rules, you are free to invoke other steps in the dispute resolution process. I do think, however, that it does not invalidate the consensus that subsequently emerged. JFW | T@lk 06:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I see, there has been a CONSENSUS, has there??? On the "external links" as well?? I must of missed it AGAIN!!! Not even a majority vote this time. When did it occur to you that this consensus was reached? What was the event? Do you see how, for those of use not so schooled in wiki culture, that one person on one side of the argument simply DECLARING a consensus, that they've won, would seem just a bit unjust? Seriously, I think the only thing that "emerged" is your glaring disregard for fair play, and your unexplicable sence of entitlement. Steve kap (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be a consensus on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

JFW, instead of interrupting the conversation, why not join it? I think its perfectly acceptable for Drmies to question if "pro-con" should be part of an encyclopedia, and I think its OK for me to respond. No? Steve kap (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And, JFW, pardon me, but I'm in the habit of choosing for myself what arguements I take up and in what order. It works well for me, and I don't need any help in that regard, thanks just the same. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

I think I'm done here. Good day and until another time. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to follow rules

personal attacks not addressing article content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the recent discussion regarding external links, JFW, stated that, although the revert in question was contrary to the "RBR" rule, and, at the time, there was no consensus for it, it, non-the-less, was appropriate, because his opinion about the text in question was correct. From 10:07, 5 August 201

"Seems I misunderstood BRD. It doesn't matter greatly... "

I'm here to ask if this will be a general present on this page. In other words, if an editor feels that his opinion on the article is correct, can he ignore the wiki rule of procedure? Those concerning BRD? Concerning consensus? What about the 3 revert rule, can that one also go away if the editor feels that his opinion on the article is correct? Are there any rules that need to be followed in this case. I welcome all opinions.Steve kap (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I'd misread the BRD guidance. That's where it ends. It doesn't give you the high ground to reopen discussions that were conducted weeks ago. I'm mystified that you're dredging up these issues weeks later. The current version may not have your support but it has the support of all editors who responded on the talkpage at the time. You may care about the rules, but I care about the article. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it never had full support, as you know full well. And what's this about not having rights? He has the right to open or reopen any discussion he chooses. It's not up to you to decide which discussions are acceptable and which aren't, as hard as it may be for you to accept that. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it never had the support of Steve_kap and yourself. Of course Steve_kap is allowed to open a discussion, but it seems pointless after so many editors have weighed in before and did not support your position, and the discussions took place a while ago. JFW | T@lk 16:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

JWF, I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem. You wrote "You may care about the rules, but I care about the article." Well, as it happens, I care about the article too. So does Kwami, I believe. But there are guidline in the way one goes about fixing things in the article. They give a path for the cases in which not everyone agrees on WHAT is RIGHT for the article. When someone, you in your 5 August post for example, ignore the rules, I believe it has negative consquences. It might seem fine for you if YOU can ignore the rules, but imagine if everyone did the same. Would it not end if chaos?

Now, if a person makes a revert, and then discover that doing so was not in acccordance with the "BRB" rule, or any other rule, would not the proper action be to undue the revert? Thereby complying with the rules that are being cited? Ofcourse I don't need to ask you JWF, we have your answer, but what about other people? Is everyone else going to follow the guidline that have emerged in wiki, and apperenly worked so well? And if everyone else is going to follow the rules, is there a particular reason JWF shouldn't? Steve kap (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article content, not other editors or Wikipedia policy. If you wish to discuss JFW's behavior, start a User RFC. If you wish to discuss policy, open a discussion on the appropriate policy Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond further over here. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg, true, this page is for talking about the article. But that means talking about which edits should say, which ones should go, yes? And thats based on rule, and that necessarly leads to a discussion of rules. Now, from what I gather, JFW expressed that rules don't matter if ones edits (by ones own opinion, I would guess) are correct. Well, OK, thats one view. Do other agree with this, as a general princaple? Or do most people think we should stick to the rules? When we come to an understanding if rules matter or not, I'd like to go on to see if we can come to an understanding on what "consensus" is. I think this would greatly reduce acromony in future, and bring back a lively, heathly activitly on the talk page. Steve kap (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I take it from the silence that nobody wants to defend the "you don't have to follow rules if you feel your edits are correct/if you care about the article" thesis. So, with that settled (but if someone would like to defend this pratice, feel free); I'd like to talk about consensus:

In past debate, e.g. my 2006 debate with JWF about the FFRF link (where he conceded, before he reniged), my earlier debate with JWF about the "ED" section, my debate with same about if "see thru stones" was a point of history, my debate with Jayjg about Carlin; the pratice was to continue the debate untill both sides saw the points made by the other, untill all questions were answered, and untill some agreemnet was reached. I believe this is consistent with the definition of "consensis" in the wikipedia guidelines.

However, in the latest debate about the RD, and the latested debated about the FFRF link, it seems that one side, indeed one person (JWF, as it happens), simply declared that a consensis had been reached. At this point, quite naturally, the debate, the rational discussion tended to end. So, which is the model going forward. I think the 1st is in keeping with the wiki guidlines, and in keeping with fair play and rational discourse. But what do others think? Steve kap (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.21 (talk)

The others think that you are not contributing anything useful with all this dredging up and referring to unspecified Wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Move on please. JFW | T@lk 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the others", I'll take that you really are speaking for yourself. Because, I believe that "the others" can speak for themselves. In fact it seems that you are alone is supporting the "my edits are correct so I don't need to follow any procedure" ethos.

As to which Wikipedia ethos I'm ref to, it has to do with CONSENSUS, and how to determine when it is reached. You might have gotten that by the process of reading. But if I didn't make it clear, there it is.

As to moving on, that is just what I indend to do. With us all following the same rules. I take it you couldn't object to that.

Now, with that cleared up, what do others think about how we are to deterine if consensus has been reached. I believe we have 2 stark choices, 2 different precedences from the past. Which will it be? 99.164.157.48 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When even biblical glosses are dismissed as irrelevant, I agree that "consensus" means majority voting. But I've tried to get input from elsewhere, and nobody seems to much care. Maybe that says something about the (ir)relevance of the 10C's in most people's lives, but I'm not going to edit war over it when it's only a numbers game and I don't have the numbers. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes,but is majority vote, in general, the definition of "consesus"? From my reading of "consesus" in the guidlines, its not. Moreover, its not the only way. I've had strong disagreements with other editors, and, thru reasoned argument, we've come to some agreement. "There is no time limit" I've been told. So I'm advocating go this way.

However, if this is going to be just majority vote, lets have them say it here and now. And defend it. Steve kap (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. But without anyone outside caring about the topic, and no willingness to compromise, I don't see the argument going anywhere. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't given up on reasoned arguement. Its worked well in the past. I if you can stay on track, the person agruing with unreasoned arguements gets back in a corner. And they say something the betrays the thiness of their argument. Like, for example, JFW and his "I don't need consensus because I'm right" argument, they get to a point where they are not foolish enought to defend it. So please, those who say this should be majority rule, in contradition to wiki guidlines, let them say it plainly. Lets have it out. Let them defend this position or abandon it. Steve kap (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should they? That would be to admit error, when they feel they are in the right. Therefore by necessity it isn't 'majority rule' but 'consensus'. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This has far surpassed WP:PA territory. If you have issues with an editor, take it to WP:ANI. Until then, if you have complaints with the article, please stay on topic and give specific suggestions for improvement. Jess_talk|_edits 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed the thread. Please open a new one for article-related discussion. Jess_talk|_edits 05:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Thou shall not kill"

Should the Commandment read "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder"? This is actually a HUGE question that everyone needs to contemplate before making a hasty judgment! When I first encountered the 10 Commandments as a child, I was taught both the King James Version and the modern American Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In both of these, the wording is "Thou shall not kill". It was only until many years later that I encountered recent Bible and Torah translations that read "Do not murder". Matter of fact, I don't believe that I have ever seen the combination of "Thou shall not murder" - what Bible or Torah version is that from? King James ordered his team of Bible experts to use wording that would imply an ancient quality, so as to give the English readers an impression that this was not a modern book. "Thou shall not ---" is an example of this.

Everyone today should realize that personal and group agendas are in play here! Do you believe that killing as an act of war is justified and therefore should not be considered breaking one of God's Commandments? Do you believe that capital punishment is justified and therefore should not be considered breaking one of God's Commandments? This is the underlying agenda of those who promote "Do not murder", although they may very well tell you that this is what is historically accurate.

The 10 Commandments are, of course, a Judeo-Christian tradition. Islam and the Qur'an discuss many aspects of the 10 Commandments, but Muhammad did not accept them as the 'word of the One God' and include them in his recited message from God. So now we are left to contemplate what the One God - the God of Abraham (Avraham, Ibrahim) - is Commanding everyone on Earth today! Is God telling His children that it is permissible to kill His other children under certain perceived approval from Him or not?! What wording would Moses today inscribe on the stone tablets? - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article already discusses the various translations. A secondary source on the subject would be most helpful. Are you actually implying that there exists a point of view that states that any form of taking human life is prohibited, including self-defense? JFW | T@lk 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's your "secondary source": Y'shua ben Yosef (Jesus) taught to "turn the other cheek". He also quoted the Golden Rule when asked which of the 10 Commandments was the greatest. If one is going to "treat your neighbor as you want them to treat you", you certainly aren't going to even consider killing anyone! - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JFW, I feel the various translations are already well handled in the article. Jesus is not a secondary source. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM before posting further to this talk page. Zargulon (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"treat your neighbor as you want them to treat you" is not an invention of Jesus. God himself says "love your neighbour like yourself" in Leviticus 19:18, and Hillel the Elder (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbath 31a) paraphrases this as "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn".

What you provided is not a secondary source. A secondary source is an unbiased examination of various sources/versions. Did you read the guideline I pointed out to you? JFW | T@lk 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said that "the Golden Rule was an invention of Jesus." Please don't misquote me (or anyone else) in a veiled attempt to promote your agenda. My second source was obvious: various Christian Bibles including those accepted by the the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, and the most widely spread Protestant Bible of all - the King James Version.

The article page was edited after my edit to "Thou shall not kill/murder". This is a satisfactory comprimise.

"Islam also teaches that the texts of the Torah and the Gospels have been corrupted from their divine originals over the years, due to carelessness and self-interest." - Article page - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:STRAW, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:POINT and WP:RS. Alternatively, devote more time to your blog. Zargulon (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't break any rules of "not a forum", if you feel that I did, please state the exact rule and how I violated it. I provided the clarity for the first part of this article that was stated in the end part of the article...

"Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words לא תרצח are variously translated as "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder". Older Protestant translations of the Bible (King James Version), those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually render it as "Thou shalt not kill," whereas Jewish and newer Protestant versions tend to use "You shall not murder." There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of many opposing ethical standpoints.

The statement "devote more time to your blog" was inappropriate to this discussion page and further proof of how there is an agenda to "Thou shall not kill" or "Do not murder". Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, I contend that there is, in fact, no Bible that reads, "Thou shall not murder." - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern about editors having an agenda, we all should strive for NPOV in the article. In this case, however, I think past "talk" have shown pretty fairly that the majority of scholars in the field translate the text "murder", not "kill". I think you're correct when you say that their is some controvercy on this point, but there IS a "controvercy" entry for this. So, I think the article is pretty fair as is on this respect. Steve kap (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew word for any killing is hereg, which is indeed also used for judicial decapitation, one of the four modes of execution discussed in the Talmud. The root for "murder" is ratzach, and this is the one used in the Ten Commandments. There is nothing POV about that. I wanted to know whether there was actually a school of thought that interpreted this commandment as stating that any killing is forbidden. Sadly I did not receive a response. Rather, I was accused by Brad of having an agenda for suggesting that the Golden Rule was not introduced by Jesus. JFW | T@lk 12:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have come across people interpreting "Thou shalt not kill" as prohibiting: (a) murder/unlawful killing, (b) killing in war, (c)capital punishment, (d)euthanasia, (e) abortion, (f) hunting animals for sport, (g)killing animals for food, (h) euthanising animals, and (i) terminating computer programmes which display artificial intelligence. I don't agree with most of those readings, but if they are deemed to be notable (i.e. not WP:FRINGE) and backed up by reliable sources, then they should go in the article. Zargulon (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moral failings of the ten commandments

Would it be appropriate to include a section of "Criticism" of the Ten Commandments? After all, they explicitly condone slavery, while omitting any mention of human-rights, equality of race/gender/orientation, and the need for kindness to children and animals. I'd suggest that they contain much that is superfluous, and some that is wrong, while omitting many things that are necessary: they are not the foundation of a good moral guide (though perhaps they weren't intended to be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that, on Wikipedia, most matters of public consern have a bit of critism. And we already have one side present, that is, that the Jewish and Christian tradition hold the 10C are a positive moral statement. So, yes, I'd say we're due for a bit of critism. But it would have to be documented. I'd recommend C. Hitchens "God is Not Great" for ref's and ideas. Steve kap (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

87.194 - this may be your opinion, but criticism is only notable if it has been expressed in reliable sources, ideally secondary sources, e.g. a neutral source that observes inpassionately that a certain Hitchens doesn't think that the 10 Commandments have brought a degree of moral enlightenment to the world.

You make the mistake of trying to force modern-day ideals into a text that dates back well over 3000 years ago. At that time, race and gender equality were not widespread ideals. It would therefore be a complete anachronism to insist that these values are somehow reflected into the Ten Commandments. I think the pronouncements in favour of monotheism, a day of rest, honouring parents, and against killing, idolatry/superstition, thievery, jealousy and bearing false withness constitute very high moral ideals for the time. Heck, there's still plenty of killing and thievery going on in the world!

By the way, slavery is not specifically condoned. It only observes that slaves should rest on the Sabbath. That, too, is a rather high level of morality, considering slaves had no rights at all in many other societies. JFW | T@lk 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

JFW, you seem to be arguing that, because the 10C was good moral frame work FOR ITS TIME (to judge it by our standards would be anacronistic), that it somehow is a good frame work FOR OUR TIME. You're entitled to that view, but to me, the logic falls flat on its face. I think the problem is that your view, which I'd grant is the majority, is represented, and the minority view, that, say, most modern people could come up with a better list of 10 within 15 minutes, is not. The minority view (not always expressed as bluntly as I have) has been codified in many ways, the FFRF link that you deleted, the Hitchens book (Hitchens, voted at one time Britians #1 public intelectual, btw). George Calins comedy bit on the 10C. Dawkins "Good delution".

You have a right to your opinion. And, as (mostly likely) the majority opinion, you have a certian right to be more out front. But don't think we're doing anyone any favors by pretending thats the only opinion, or even the only notable opinion. You know, NPOV, all that... Steve kap (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to explain, the 10C is no less relevant today than it was when first formulated. There's still plenty of stealing and killing doing on, isn't there? As to Hitchens, all we need is a secondary source; I do not rule out mentioning his criticisms as long as we have a secondary source for them. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the relevance of the 10C, I'm not sure how much a commandment is disobayed is a good measure of its relavance. Otherwise "Observe the Sabith" might be considered the most relevent, much more so than murder.

As to second source, I'll give it a go. But I've noticed that this rule is not always followed. For example, ref 2), to Exodus, is this a second source? Or maybe it is, maybe the 1st source was the actual stones! 99.164.157.48 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

JFW, I have read your comment about forcing modern-day ideals on a 30-century-old document. One basis of the 10C is that it is the work (expression, rule-making, communication, law) of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. Is this God somehow subject to the foibles of the age, somehow subject to standards 'of the time'?. Somehow requiring an adjustment in understanding for appropriateness to a given period of time? I am trying to fit that idea into my mind, and it's a tough go. Is God mentioning or referencing slavery, but not coming right out and saying that it is wrong, because of the expectations of people living at that time? I could easily be wrong here, but it seems remote that God would be working in politically correct territory. I can see that his interpreters might desire PC representations, though. Rainbow-five (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really planning on addressing every point, but I think slavery is part of the human condition (slavery is currently acceptable in a number of societies, in name or reality) and - as the Jewish sages say - the "Torah speaks in the language of man". Slavery is clearly frowned upon implicitly in Exodus 22 and Leviticus 25, and the Oral Law makes a number of even starker pronouncements against slavery. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow, I wish smart people like you would direct your energy into trying to improve the article, rather than engaging in general discussion. This really isn't a forum. JFW's main point was that criticisms need to be attested by Reliable secondary sources. I would add that they also should be notable, and that even if those criteria are satisfied, that doesn't imply there should be a dedicated "criticisms" section in this article (which is the point under discussion in this section of the talk page) - I feel that is controversy-junkie territory. Can I ask whether you have any specific changes in mind? Zargulon (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to contribute thoughts to a reasoned discussion, in the hope that the product of that exchange would be a direction for improving the article. Elements of what (User, beginning of this thread) suggest are already present in the article, though not in a section of their own. I have no specific change in mind right now - I would need to study the article, and references, further, for that. I am no fan of controversy or grinding away at a position just to hear the noise; if the effort of communicating leads to a better, clearer article, though, I believe it is worthwhile. Rainbow-five (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support an effort add text about the modern day acceptance and relavence of the 10C, along with what some might call moral shortcomings of the 10C. Steve kap (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

God's Finger

Is there really a ref to the stones being written by God's finger? I read a verse that had God ordering MOSES to write the stones. And I see an earlier verse in which God says that HE would write on the stones. But I don't read a verse in which God actually DOES write on the stone. And not specificly with his FINGER. But I din't want to change, I could be wrong. Anyone? Steve kap (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really NPOV to say "According to the bible ...written by the finger of god". Would it not be more accurate to say "according to religous tradition"? After all, there seem to be various biblical versions of how the words actually got to stone (no debate about the authorship, of course). In general, and this story in particular, is the bible so unambiguous, so singluar, so unchanging from book to book, to allow us to safley say "According to the bible " ? I suggust a more NPOV and accurate working. Steve kap (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Exodus 31:18 not good enough for you? JFW | T@lk 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In the presence of Exodus 20:1, in which they are spoken to the people, Exodus 34:28, in which they are written by Moses, Deut 5:4, in which they are spoken to the people, and Deut 5:5, in which they are spoken to Moses, and relayed to the people, AND given that this is a 1st source not a 2nd, I'd say "No", its not good enough for me. More over, its not good enough for the article. The article starts the sentence with "According to the bible". But to choose one of these stories over the other, I submit thats an interpretation. Which is fine, if you have a 2nd source, and you state it as an interpretation. But to say as much as "..this is what the bible REALLY means", how, I wonder, could the EVER be considered NPOV? 99.164.157.48 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Steve kap (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you Steve kap or are you someone else? Guess what, ancient sources have contradictions. That does not invalidate the fact that one of those citations happens to say that the tablets were written by God's finger. The classical Jewish interpretation is of course that the first set was written by God and the second set by Moses. I don't think neutrality is the central problem here. JFW | T@lk 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be fine if the article read "according to Jewish interpretation". But it doesn't. Its says "accoring to the bible". The bible the we both agree is full of conratdictions (guess what? your sarcasim is unhelful an contrary to wikipedia guidlines). So, I'll say it again, in the face of these contradictions, in the face of various traditions, how could it be NPOV to take ONE interpratation and say "according to the bible". Steve kap (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Exodus 31:18? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(Yes, please read 4 comments above, and my reponce, 3 above)99.40.226.200 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I read them. You initially wrote you could find no verse which states God wrote the tablets with his finger. A verse was produced, Exodus 31:18, which explicitly states they were written by God's finger. Exodus 32:15-16 confirms this, by the way. Then you complained about a bunch of irrelevant verses. Exodus 34:28 is unclear about who carved them, but in any event is about the second set of tablets, not the first ones of Exodus 31, which were smashed by Moses in Exodus 32:19. Exodus 20 says nothing about the tablets. Nor does Deuteronomy 5:4-5. So, what's your issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue is as it was: that it is not NPOV to select one verse over several others and say "according to the bible" about one, and claim that all others are irrelevant. Steve kap (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes them relevant? They're either talking about a different set of tablets, or don't mention the tablets at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes them relevant? Well, what they say (e.g., "And God said to the people"), their proximity to the 10 commandments (e.g. right before or right after), and the normal rules of grammar. Steve kap (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Bible says God spoke to the people, and it says there was a second set of tablets, created after the first set—the set written with God's finger—was destroyed. So what? We're not interested in WP:NOR here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? So.... its not NPOV to present one version, with the exclusion of all others, as if to imply that the bible tells a consistent story, one in which you could rightly use the phrase "according to the bible". THATS so what. Steve kap (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "one version, with the exclusion of all others"? Are there "versions" of the story in which the first set of tablets are not written with God's finger? Which verses say the first tablets were not written with God's finger? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, ".. with the exclusion of all others", that means that those versions were, well, excluded!! Not included. I'm sure that was clear. Are you sure you intended that to be your question?

I'd suggest a more accurate, NPOV, sourced, proper sythisis sentence might be, "Various verses of the bible have them (the 10C) being spoken by God to the people, spoken by God to Moses, written by God's finger, or written by Moses. In all cases, however, the authorship is clearly Gods". Or "According to religous tradition.... (and then you can say any damn thing you like, as long as you have a good source, that include the major Abrahamic traditions) ". Steve kap (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not really making sense here; why would God speaking the commandments be a "different version" than God writing them with his finger? Isn't it possible to say something and carve it too? Why would Moses (possibly) writing the 10 commandments on a second set of tablets be a "different version" than God inscribing them with his finger on the first? They are different incidents! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have just said the Moses (possibley) wrote the 10C in one of the versions. Of course you could find a verse to support that, and plenty of sources. As JWF said, ancient sources often contradict eachother. So, in the face of such (possible, arguable) contraditions, and others, is it NPOV so say "according to the bible... finger of god", excluding (as in, not including) all other verses, that have different delivery methods? If the bible has them being spoken to the people, written by god, written by moses, spoken to moses... why should the article say anything different? Why privelage one verse over all others? Then, if tradition has it that 2 or 3 or 4 of these are part of the same story, that they can say so. What could be more fair than that? Steve kap (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In my recent edit I put in that their "initial" form was the tablets of stone written by God's finger - I hope that resolves the issue..Zargulon (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think your change from "according to the bible" to "the bible describes" is a big improvement. But, why are we saying that it was initially given by Gods finger on the stones? The first ref to 10C have them being spoken by God to the people, nothing to do with the stones. Now, ofcourse that doesn't necessaryly mean that they were spoken first. It just mean that we can't fairly say that we know that they were written first.

My text "their initial form" doesn't say that they were written before being spoken, it merely says that the first time they are mentioned as being physically written (having a "form"), it was by the finger of God on two stone tablets. Zargulon (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that would hold only under the most narrow definition of the word "form". I think generally the word "form", when applied to ideas, would include the spoken word (eg, one could say "The report was given in the form of a speach" and not be incorrect).

The Ten Commandments is not generally referred to as an "idea", so the rest of your sentence would not apply even if it were fair. However it isn't fair, since "form" does suggest physical shape or medium in this context, and I don't find your counterexample convincing or relevant. Zargulon (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my be that, to some people, "form" sugget a physical form. But the definion of form is certainly not limited to a physical form. So, the senctence "The Ten Commandments were first delivered in the form of a speach to the people" is grammadicly correct. Now, people my argue if it is actually correct. So, one could fairl read the sentence of the article as claiming that the 1st delivery of the 10C was by Gods finger, a claim that hasn't been supported, and has some good evidence against it.

As to "I don't find your counter example convincing or relevant", I don't find such statements at all convincing or relevant because no evidence or resoning is provided to support the statement. In other words, it would be up to you to say WHY its not relevent, because on the face it, it sure as heck seems to blow a big, wide, hole in your 'form only applies to physical things' claim. 99.40.226.200 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So sue. Zargulon (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of the word "initial" all together? I don't think its really supportable, and I don't see it a eccential. Steve kap (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest either "the bible describes in various versious as being spoken to Moses or the people, or written by god or perhaphs Moses",, or, if thats too long for an intro, maybe "the bible describes at one point (or in one verse) being written by the finger of god onto stone" or "..in various versions written in stone by God's finger or perphaps Moses". Thanks for you inputs. Steve kap (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Too many words, and an attempt to solve a non-existent problem, whose nature is still not clear. Your first claim that the words didn't exist in the Bible has been disproved, your thesis that these are all "different versions" has been disproved, and your novel definition of the word "form" is specious. To what exactly are you now objecting? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

With the edits made, and the info and sources given, my objection, on this sentence of the article, is down to the the word "initially", as in the 10C was initally given in the form of stone tables written by gods finger. As I've said, using, sadly, words, I don't think this is supported. (BTW, I don't think a definition of the word "form", that would include speach is at all "novel", and neither does the dictionarly, but you are entitled to your unsupported opinion). 99.40.226.200 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree, amicably, that Mr kap is interested in, and working towards, precision in the article? And that his interest and efforts are aimed at achieving and maintaining standards of accuracy? I read in his comments measured argument for clarity. Is there a way for the article to say "when the bible first introduces the reader to the 10C, they are presented in a spoken form (or fair synonyms)..." and to discuss the tablets as a component of the 'work' of the 10C? Rainbow-five (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to impugn Mr. Kap's good faith, what he seems to be arguing for in my mind is precision at the expense of clarity. Other editors, including myself, have taken the view that adopting the level of precision and depth which he recommends in the lead would degrade its conciseness, and indeed clarity, and that in the lead clarity and conciseness are considerations which have significant weight. We do not accept his suggestion that the lead as it currently stands is misleading or substantively imprecise, and we feel that the required precision is expressed in the body of the article which we believe is its proper place. Zargulon (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my efforts were to keep peoples interpretation of the bible text away from the presentation of biblical text. It may well be that a group or a person interp the 10C as FIRST being delivered in stone, but the text doens't unambiguously say that. BTW, anyone is free to call me Steve, save those who would not have ME ref to THEM in the familiar. Steve kap (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Article says: "Although Exodus 34 describes God inscribing a new set of tablets, it does not provide the contents of the new set."

Yes it does provide the contents and they are very different from the other sets. Why is this ignored in this article and why do most Christians and Jews ignore them? They were the final set given by god and they were the ones put in the Ark of the Covenant. Seems like they would be the most important set but they are the most ignored. Why? Bluetd (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific changes you'd like to see made to the article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See many threads passim on this talkpage, and pay particular attention to the perspective offered by Slrubenstein, who has an academic interest in the subject. Now if we could please move on... JFW | T@lk 20:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going on the bible itself and some Youtube videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjhFlI6-ZBI

The commandments are clearly spelled out in Exodus 34. I would have to dig up sources and I don't have much luck with that, my sources get rejected a lot. Bluetd (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue - I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I can understand why your sources get rejected a lot. The reason is that they are ephemeral and frivolous. If you care about improving the article, it might be worth your time to go through some scholarly work on the Bible and Ten Commandments, and if this validates your argument, I believe you will get a more encouraging reception. Zargulon (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was rather ridiculous. I know that tradition holds that where the Bible says he wrote "these words", it doesn't really mean these words, but some others, nonetheless for us to actually claim the contents are not given is unwarranted. I changed the wording to clarify that this is the traditional argument. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, please find a reliable source for the statement that the commandments accompanying Exodus 34 are 'argued' not to be the new set, otherwise please try to avoid weasel words ('it was argued'). Zargulon (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll delete the sentence entirely. Claiming that the 10C's do not exist where they are listed is ridiculous. (As for sources, lots have been given on this talk page in arguments over this very topic.) — kwami (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for what.. the passage you just deleted? I must be getting old, I am losing the plot. Zargulon (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The passage says that the TC's are inscribed in Ex34 but not listed there. They are, of course, listed there if one accepts the Bible as being factually correct. It requires rather tortured logic to deny that they're there, and although that's fine, we should be clear that that's the traditional interpretation and not incontrovertible. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kwami - Firstly, you seem to suggest that your view requires the Bible to be accepted as factually correct, but it is absurd to advocate that Wikipedia accept the Bible as being factually correct. Secondly you disingenuously suggest that the article described the TC without Ex.34 because it was the "traditional interpretation". Rather, it is because the currently widely and normally used meaning does not include the commandments of Ex. 34. This is widely sourced and verifiable as JFW explained in his edit summary. Zargulon (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that at all. But we can hardly take a single POV and present it as fact. There is a long history of noting that Ex34 presents a set of verses that it calls the TCs, and while that's a minority opinion, it is biased of us to state, as if it were a factual statement, that it does not.

No-one ever suggested stating that. Zargulon (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All we need to do is note that it is the "currently widely and normally used meaning" (as well as the traditional understanding), which is what I tried to do in my edit that you reverted. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have tried, but you did not succeed, thus my revert. Nonetheless I disagree that we need to do what you suggest.. I think it was obvious from the context that it was giving the currently widely and normally used meaning, and putting your minority interpretation there was undue weight and stylistically clumsy. Zargulon (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Then find a way that's not clumsy. We make what appear to be factual statements about what are not actually factual assertions. It's not at all obvious to me that we don't mean what we say. That needs to be corrected. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I thought we resolved the so-called "Ritual Decalogue" business. Why is it being raised again? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, Lisa. When some say A, and others say B, we shouldn't present A as if it were fact. That's true even if you happen to believe A. Seriously, do I need to explain that to you? — kwami (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we will continue to have these flare ups up Ex 34, RD discussions untill we improve that article a bit. We should present the bible text ref the the 10C openly and fairly, and present the religous traditions opently and fairly. It seems to me we are taken snipets of the bible, in a strategic way, in order to avoid any appears of contradictions between the text and a given tradition. Thats a mistake, in my view, and its not NPOV.

And the "1st revelation, 2nd revelation", where the 2nd revelation turn out to be not the 10C at all, but rather a condenced "convent code"; what can I say. If taken seriously it argues itself OUT OF THE ARTICLE!! Because this is an article about the 10C, not the convent code. Its certainly has nothing to do with the Christian tradition, which holds that the 10C, not the convent code, not a condenced convent code, was written on 2nd set of stones, after Moses smashed the first. Steve kap (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on the Ritual Decalogue. That's where it should be dealt with. The Ten Commandments are the Ten Commandments. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 05:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you purposefully misunderstanding? In the RD article we don't say the ED does not exist. Here we may refer the reader to the RD article, but we shouldn't say that the RD does not exist. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion will carry on going around in circles (as it has done on every iteration before now) unless we can agree on a couple of things. The first one is that prior to Goethe, nobody believed that Exodus 34 contained a set of ten commandments. The second one is that according to the traditionalist perspective, the Torah/Pentateuch was written by a single author over a period of about 40 years. Unless you can bring proof to the contrary, I propose that both these statements are accepted as fact for the purpose of this discussion. It will save us a lot of kilobytes if you could agree to that. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the first is true or not, but neither of those points is at issue here. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK then. Bye. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The first point is utterly unproved and unprovable, but is also so completely irrelevant that I think it needs no further comment. To the second point, I’d like to add that the prospective that the Torah was written by a single author , that’s a minority point of view. A tiny, tiny minority as far as experts in the field go. But, if you want to call such people “traditionalist”, I’ll grant you that. No harm in a name. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

You are missing my point, but then that's not a surprise given our previous exchanges. Bye to you too. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bye JFW, sorry I missed your point. For the rest of us, I'd like to point out the problems I see in JFW suggestion, so that we can raise the level of discussion.

'Prior to Goethe, nobody believed... 34... 10C '. To prove this true would require an exhuastive search, which, when it come to the opinions of dead people, is pretty hard to come by. So we can dismiss this out of hand. And then, there is the small matter of relavence.

'All traditionalist...Torah written by one author'. Well, that depends on the definition of 'traditionalist'. If its one who believe the Torah was written by one author, the statement is ofcourse true. But thats called taulogy, it proves and means nothing. Its just saying one thing with other words. If this is intended to give authority to the opinion, then it argument from authority, another logical error. And, for wiki rules purposes, there is the issue of MPOV, which this certainly is.

'Unless you can PROVE to the contrary (I suggest you accept..)' Well, anyone can spot the logical error in this one. Not every statement is true until proved false. If I can't disprove invisable pink unicorns, thats not proof that they exist.

My aim is to get back to the disucssion, and put aside all such logical non-starter once and for all. Steve kap (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the Torah was written by a single author then why are their 2 very different versions of creation in Genesis? Bluetd (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa (talk • contribs)

"stone (granite) tablets"

"stone (granite) tablets": this is an evaluation of what type of stone was actually used - it's important. - Brad Watson 75.74.156.102 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And how do we know they were granite? — kwami (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Jewish tradition, they were actually made of sapphire. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What Jayjg said. -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone put "granite" back in there. Despite of the talk here. Thats just not the way we do things. Steve kap (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

When did someone put it back? I see nothing in the article history since November 17, the first time it was added. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake. I got the timeline mixed up. Sorry. I withdraw my comment. Steve kap (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Second Revelation

I've got some concerns about this section. I assume that "2nd revelation" ref to the 2nd revelation of the ten commandment, the subject of the article, correct? If so, why is what is revealed then called 'the small conventent code'. I mean, if what is revealed is NOT the 10 commandments, how could it posibly be the 2nd revelation of the 10 commandments? In deed, what could it possibly MEAN to say that the 2nd revelation of the 10 commandments what something other than the 10 commandments? And, is this rather strange view really the majority point of view? I was under the impression, what I was taught in Sunday school, that the 2nd set of commandants was a replacement of the 1st, with the same set of rules.

AND, if indeed the 2nd revelation of the 10 commandments was not the 10 commandments (my whatever logic could get you there), why is it in an article about 10 commandments?

In summary:

1) How can the 2nd relevation of the 10 commandments be something thats not the 10 commantments? 2) Is what is presented the majority point of view? 3) If the 2nd revleation is not the 10 commandments, what should it be part of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you wanted the Ritual Decalogue represented? This is what the scholarly literature has to say on the subject (and I trust Slrubenstein to represent it fairly). I have no problems with the section currently. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats a lot of illogic pack in just a few sentences, let me address:

"I thought you wanted the Ritual Decalogue represented?", so, you're saying the "small convent code" is also RD? Interesing! Is it OK then to ID it as the RD? I only ask because previously you seem to agrue to the contrary. But if you've like to edit the article, saying the many scholors (most, really), ID these as a version of the 10C, and if you'd let me state what they are, I think we'd all be in agreement. Somehow, however, I don't think thats what you mean. Maybe you'll figure out what you mean after you read this, and let me know.

"This is what the scholarly literature has to say on the subject ", well, true, there is a least one scholor that ref to these lines in Ex as "the small convent code". But that hardly makes it MPOV, does it? I find it hard to believe that most scholors believe that the replacement of the 10C was not the 10C, but the "small covnent code". Its hard to fathom what such a proposition would even mean. But, if you have evidence that this is main stream thinking these days, please, be my guest, provide it.

"I have no problems with the section currently." True. It is I thas has a problem with the artile as written. And I've stated and expaned upon those problems. And you have addressed these problems not at all. 130.76.96.152 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to address them at all. It was a lazy riposte to another confused demand from you, the kind we're all used to. Please provide evidence that what is currently presented is not NPOV (because it seems to be doing a fairly good job at covering all relevant opinions). JFW | T@lk 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

JWF,I'm very sorry for demanding,, or at least I would be, if I could point to a single thing that I demanded... or even asked for. So I that know what I'm supposed to be sorry for, could you point out the deamnd that you ref to?

Jayjg, if we are to mantain that the 2nd revalantion of the 10C is "the small covenent code", I'd ask that the context of this small convented code be displayed. As a source, I'd point to the same source that ref the those passages (those leading up to Ex 34:27, as ID'ed currently in the article) as the "small covent code", the source that this paragraph currently refs. It could be labled as "the small covent code" or "the 2nd revelation of the 10C", I don't much are, as, according to the artile, they are one and the same. Steve kap (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What exact text do you want to change/add, and what is the specific source? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd suggest a summary of the contents "the small covent code", the "Second Revelation", ie, of Ex 34:10-28. The source would be the same as the current paragraph, namey 13,14,15. 99.189.74.88 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So Steve kap is back trying to muddy the waters with his original research. He asks, " If so, why is what is revealed then called 'the small conventent code'." The answer is: it is not. The Book of the Covenant (or Covenant Code) is not the Decalogue. It is a separate document given to Moses along with the second inscription of the decalogue just as the article says. We mention it because some readers, who are ignorant of the vast amount of actual scholarly research on the Torah, have proposed their own weird theory that this is another "ten commandmnts." So this is a good opportunity to include in this article a summary of the mainstream research on the matter. Of course, all Jews know that the ten commandmnts are only a small fraction of the laws God revealed to Moses, there were 603 more. No one - religious or critical - divides all of these into additional decalogues - what would that make, sixty one decalogues with 3 commandmnts left over? No, there is only the ten commandments. On stone, they were inscribed twice, as narratd in Exodus. Verbally, we are told what the ten commandments are twice; once in Exodus and again in Deuteronomy when Moses reviews the highlights of Israel's relationship with God. How complicated is this? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is a separate document given to Moses along with the second inscription of the decalogue.."

So, during the "second revolation", what was revealed was BOTH the ten commandments, in stone, AND the "small coventent code"? Two seperate documents, two seperate sets of stone? Is that what you are saying? And THAT'S the mainstream view? Remarkable. 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

What's complicated is that when the 10Cs are spelled out, they don't match. Then people need to say they really do match, or they're not really the 10Cs, etc. You have to bend over backwards to get such a reading, but that contortion is the MPOV. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR, I was completedly unaware the article was saying the "2nd revelation" contained BOTH the 2nd 10C AND the covents code. If this is the mainstream POV, shall I make the article say that more clearly? Steve kap (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, second revelation refers only to 10C, it is just that Exodus 34 in addition describes other laws (as most other chapters in Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus describe as well). I made one change in organization I hope clarifis things, if you think it is still unclear I am sure we can clarify it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see ,I see!! The 10C stops at Ex 34.4,, the rest is the small c. code. So, let me get this right, the mainstream interpretation of Ex 34 is:

34.1 Hew 2 stones 34.2 Come in the morning 34.3 Come alone 34.4 Moses Hew's 2 stone

(Then, although not written anywhere in the book, we are to assume the God wrote the 10C on the stones, then somehow got two more stone, and said as such 'OK, thats its for the 10C, now I'm going to give you a highly condensed version of of the Covent Code', without any mention of any of this in the text.) Then back to the actual bible:

34.10-27 (The small Convent Code is given) 34.10-28 (God ref to the small convent code as 'the 10 statements'

Now, you seem to be well versed in the scholorly mainstream view of all this. Do these scholars have any words on WHY such the * portion was left off of the book? Do they enlighten us on what makes them think that is was intended? Do they tell us why there is so much overlap between the 10C and the small CC? I mean, if God was going to spare words, give a condensed version, why the overlap with a seperate document? Do these sourse tell use why the text doesn't I.D. the small cc as Do the sources tell us how these 10 statments of the small CC somehow cover the intent of the orignal cc, which was scores of pages?

Do these sources tell the purpose of 34:28? If it ref to Ex 34:10-27, the small CC, why does it use the term "the 10 commandments (or "the 10 statments", in other translations)? If it ref to the 10C, why seperate it so far from the 10C? Why were normal rules of grammar ingored? Steve kap (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve, what changes, based on reliable sources, do you propose making to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'd like to hear back from SLR first, see what his mainstream sources say, in responce to my questions, before I'd suggest anything. Steve kap (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things, firstly as for it not being a neutral point of view, it is a potentially Christian point of view as it tries to remove a contradiction in the Bible. As far as the majority view, why should that matter? Ages ago, the majority thought the world was flat, that did not make it so. Currently, the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews (and thus the majority that concern themselves with the 10 commandments), consider God, Yaweh, Jehovah or Allah to be a good, kind, loving, merciful, fair diety. That doesn't make that true. Regardless of what people think, God is still evil, they appear to be a set of 10 commandments. They are given as a set of 10 with God saying "Observe thou that which I command thee this day", seeming like he is giving a set of commandments. How is this not a set of 10 commandments? Either it is an alternate set of 10 commandments (You can have multiple sets of cards, so why not multiple sets of 10 commandments), or there is only meant to be one set, and the person that wrote about them the second time contradicted the first time. There is nothing in that passage that says that God gave Moses the 10 commandments on stone tablets, then gave him something else as well. Why would God then refer to them as commandments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.52.228 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Slr, No answer? That's a bit disturbing. Can you infact quote a specific source that tells us that Ex 34 represents the delivery of TWO sets of documents, the 10C and the small CC? I'd hate to think you made this up out of whole cloth. Steve kap (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kap, what do you man "no answer?" What is so disturbing? You are now bringing up a question I answered some time ago, the last time you fihed here. Why should I repeat an answer I already gave you? Jayjg asked a perfectly reasonable question and guess what - unlike your original research, it is in tune with wikipedia policy. Moreover, I did considerable research on the issue and added it to the article some time ago. It clearly answers your questions. It osunds to me like you are pushing your own point of view on the talk page when you have not even read the article! That's disturbing!! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein; those are tough, insightful question, let me give it a go:

"What do I mean "no answer""- thats simple.....you didn't answer my question. You didn't even respond. How could I make that more clear.

"Why should I repeat an answer"- so I know what your answer is.

"I did considerable research on the issue.."- and yet, you can't anwer my question, or provide a quote to support your position.

"It sounds to me like you are pushing your own point.." - by asking you so support your POV? By asking YOU quesitons? Really?

Really, Slrubenstein, if have a source that specificly says (as you claim) that Ex 34 contains BOTH the 10C AND the small CC AND that the 10C is delivered from Ex34.1-4 and the Small CC for Ex 34.10-27, please, give me the quote. If you've already provide, do a cut and paste (wouldn't that have been less time than your 'I've answered it before, speal?'). Or, maybe you don't have such a source. In that case, please, DO go on and on about how its not fair for me to ask. Steve kap (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confessing to violating NOR, and confirming that you have not read the article. Since I already answered you directly, you know my answer and there is no need to repeat. I hope you can find other people to humor you as I am done. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My,my, did I really confess such? I'm sure I would have remebered that. Let me check the record...

5 Feb? no.. no.. all I read there are some questions for you. No confesions there..

7 Feb? no..no.. all I do is ask you if you can answer the questions, or if you in fact can support your basic premise, no confesion to be found...

9 Feb? nope, I just answer your questions (wouldn't our "Talk" be more fuitfull if you did the same) no cofesion there either!!! What a suprise.

Now, to your "I've answered your question directly" claim...what a suprize, nothing..

So, Slrubenstein, rather than invent things that any fair reading will know is not true, rather than attack the questioner, why don't you try answering the question?? I mean, it is fair, after all, right? You make some very specific claims, some very extraordinary claims!! And for all I know, they might be verifiable. But they are your claims, and you have to support them.

You chide me for doing "original research" (what I'd call 'asking questions'), well, how bad would it be to put whole verse in the bible, that aren't there already? How bad is it to make up an interpritation out of whole cloth (if that is what you are doing).

Please DO re-join the issues and support your claims if you can. I'm sure fair readers would prefer a discussion on the issues. If you've answered any question already, be so kind as to let us know what the answer is!! That way we'll both know, and the discussion can more forward. 99.72.26.10 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. What changes, based on reliable sources, do you propose making to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jay. I did review "NotAForm", and, thankfully, its didn't prohibit me or anyone to ask editors to varify the claims they are making from sources. As to changes, I propuse the sentence...

"This event occasions a recapitulation of the account of God's inscribing two stone tablets Exodus 34:1-4, and conveying the Book of the Covenant Exodus 34:10-28, in a highly condensed form in Exodus 34, what historians call "the Small Covenant Code."

..be deleted, as no reliable source as been offered to say that Ex 34 contained BOTH a re-do of the 10C AND the small covenant code. I've asked repeadly for a source, but this seems to be somehting that SLR made out of whole cloth... Or, if I'm wrong, if you know a source that says this, please, feel free to step in. Steve kap (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not delete sourced content. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, my dear friend, lets not pretend that this our first day talking about this, shall we? I've repeatedly asked for a quote from any of these sources to support the propusal that Ex 34 contains both the 2nd coming of the 10C AND the small CC, as you claim the article clearly states, and you've come up with zippo.

If you had such a quote, how easy it would be for you to present it. You'd no longer have endure my speculation that you're making this up out of whole cloth, which you couldn't much enjoy. You see, of course, it not enough just to have the source in your library. No, the source has to actually say that things you claim it says.

Your claims of supporting evidence that you just can't produce reminds me of an atheist saying, "the invisble and the non-existent look very much alike". It also reminds me of Joe McCarthy's briefcase. In the communist witch hunts, he had all the evidence he needed, right there in his brief case... which only he could access..... My suggestion stands. Steve kap (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "evidence" is simply historians interpretations. This is not actually evidence, but the viewpoint of historians. John Bright also wrote about the reliability of the Bible. Using that as a source is like using (Dr) Kent E. Hovind as a source for creationism. They have no actual facts to back it up, it is merely their interpretation/rejection of the contrary. Where in the Bible does it say that they are two separate documents. It does not say that anywhere. If you refuse to say that it is a different set of 10 commandments, then at least say it might be, and is considered by some to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.52.228 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@Anonymous edito: don't be silly. Of course citations from historians are evidence that historians hold a certain view! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, nice going, completely ignore my argument. That's a no brainier, it is evidence that historians hold a certain view, but not all historians, if you want to be like that, I am a person, I hold the view that Exodus 34 is a second set of the 10 commandments, thus all people must think that. It doesn't work like that. But that wasn't even the key point I was making, the point I was making is that it isn't in the Bible that it is 2 separate documents. The Bible appears to have God giving Moses two tablets and a second set of 10 commandments. You dismiss all claims that it is a separate and contradicting set for 2 reasons, one of which is it shows your Bible to be a load of crap, and 2, because those people agree with you. I want to know where in the Bible it says it is 2 separate things, that God first gave Moses the 10 commandments again, and then gave him the small covenant code (which co-incidentally were 10 commandments).

Also, where can I find a copy of those texts? Do you have any more recent things, from when the western world was losing it's ties to Christianity.122.106.52.228 (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@anonymous editor, you miss my point. Editors do not put their own interpretations into Wikipedia articles. The book of Exodus is a primary source that has been interpreted in many ways. "it isn't in the Bible that it is 2 separate documents" is how you read it, but not how others read it. The way we at Wikipedia handle this situation is: we do not put our own readings in, we look for reliable secondary sources. I read all the major historians of Biblical Israel and critical historians of the Bible and put what I could find in the article. Some of the most notable historians don't say anything about this; obviously I could only add the views of major historians who had something to say. If you know of other major historians who provide other analyses, by all means let's add their views. "More recent things" - in terms of the study of the Hebrew Bible, Bright is pretty recent. I looked at Noth, another recent and important historian, he had nothing to say. I have not looked at Moshe Greenberg or Nahum Sarna - if anyone could that would be great, they are major authorities on Exodus. I do not understand your other question. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Editors do not put their own interpretations into Wikipedia articles"-Well, true, from what you decribe, you read everything you could on the subject, then went with the one source (if even that) that had a POV that you could square with your religous tradition. Thats called data mining. Its not NPOV. Its not unbiased. Its not mainstream.

If indeed he did that, it would be called selective citation, not "data mining". Please review data mining and educate yourself. Zargulon (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, try googling "small covenant code", you get about 12 hits, and most of them in ref to THIS ARTICLE!!!!!! This compared to, say "ritual decalogue", that gets 35,000 hits (which is a term that, I'm told by Slrubenstein, 'nobody, but nobody uses!'). Guys, we can't present these singual, strange, fringe views as the only view. I'd question if we should present them at all. Steve kap (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While not loosing sight that Slrubenstein has provide zero evidence that Bright even claimed that Ex 34 contained BOTH the 10c AND the small cc, Anonymous brings up a good point. Bright is the ONLY auther ref'ed... Is he crediable? Does his views represent the mainstream view? Lets do a little Wiki research and find out:

Looks like Bright was part of Albrights 'Biblical Archaeology' school. Which is far from the mainstream, and has been widely rejected:

"The Albrightian consensus was overturned in the second half of the 20th century. Improved archaeological methods... did not support the conclusions the biblical archaeologists had drawn, with the result that central theories squaring the biblical narrative with archaeological finds ... were rejected by the archaeological community."

Mainstream? Reliable? Steve kap (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Books is not a random sampling of books, and does not reflect reliability, but it's better than a regular Google count. There are 416 hits for "Ritual Decalog(ue)" that show up, out of 1500 returns. "Small Covenant Code", on the other hand, returns 3 hits, one of which refs another. These are:

The religion of Israel, from its beginnings to the Babylonian exile – Yeḥezkel Kaufmann (1960); Yeḥezkel Kaufmann &Moshe Greenberg (1972)

"The laws of JE comprise Exodus 12:21–27; 13:1–16; the Decalogue 20:2–14; the large Covenant Code 20: 19–23: 19; with its epilogue, verses 20–33; the small Covenant Code 34:17–26; with its prologue, verses 10–16"

Leviticus: the priestly laws and prohibitions from the perspective of ancient Near East and Africa – Johnson M. Kimuhu (2008)

"The laws regulating the relations of the Israelites to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan who preceded them, following Weinfeld [next], will include laws in the Covenant Code (Exod 21–23, which is the most ancient code, and in the law of the small Covenant code in Exod 34:11–17), the Priestly Code (Num 33:50–56), and the Deuteronomic Code (Deu 7:5; 20:10–18)."

Moshe Weinfeld, "The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and its Historical Development", in André Lemaire, Benedikt Otzen (1993) History and traditions of Early Israel: studies presented to Eduard Nielsen

"Laws regulating the relations of the Israelites to the inhabitants of Canaan who preceded them are found in the three law codes of the Pentateuch: (1) In the so-called large Covenant code of Exodus 21–23, which is the most ancient code, and in the law of the small Covenant code in Exodus 34:11–17."

GScholar returns one hit for SCC, another book by Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land (1993, UC Press). RD, on the other hand, returns 94 hits.

Note that the two defs of the SCC conflict: Ex34:17–26 (1960 & 1993) vs Ex34:11–17 (2008). While these overlap the RD, no source on GBooks or GScholar uses both terms. There aren't even any hits on general Google! — kwami (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

kwami, it is too strong to say they conflict. Kaufmann includes 11-6 in the SCC, he identifies it as its prologue. I note too that Kaufmann distinguishes between the Ten Commandments and the SCC. Weinfeld too seems to distinguish between the Covenant Code and the Ten Commandments. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More interesting results pop up in a search for "covenant code" + "ritual decalogue". Basically, LCC ≈ ED (being the text immediately following) and SCC ≈ RD (generally being the same text). In Ethical dimensions of the prophets Joseph Jensen (2008), the ED is Ex 20:2-17 & Deut 5:6-21, the RD is Ex 34:17-26, and the Covenant Code is Ex 20:22–23:19(33). Also,

Old Testament Life and Literature I. G. Matthews (2003:48–49)

"The terms of the covenant that Israel was to observe are not certain. Loyalty to Yahweh, their deity, was, of course, a primary requirement, but the exact limit of the commandments that were to be observed is largely a matter of speculation. J. in a very circumstantial way makes the ritual decalogue Exodus xxxiv. 14–28, the words of the covenant which were written on the tables of stone (Ex. xxxiv. 27–28). E., on the other hand, has a very much enlarged body of law, called the Covenant Code (Ex. xx. 18–xxiii.), which is likewise made the basis of the same covenant (Ex. xxiv. 3–8). These in turn do not agree with the record in Deuteronomy, where the ethical decalogue is the law which was written on the two tables of stone when Yahweh made the covenant with Israel in Horeb (Dt. v. 2–22). It is evident that we have scattered throughout Covenant Code a recension of the ritual decalogue. Two witnesses might seem to establish this as the original body of law which Israel covenanted to keep. But a glance at the contents, which are framed for an agricultural community (e.g., the harvest festivals), puts that out of the question. Turning to the ethical decalogue, we find here also two recensions (Dt. v. 6–21 and Ex. xx. 1–17) with considerable variations. It is evident that behind the present forms there lay a decalogue, or a small group of laws, which contained the prohibitions in their simplest forms. Such a simple body of laws, ten more or less, emphasizing those principles that must be observed between the tribes, if there is to be any unity, and recognizing Yahweh as their only God, may well have been made the bond of the new community life under Moses. If this was the case, these commandments would be obligations only within the tribes, and would hardly have the universal significance which we now find in them."

Kap, for several decades the mainstream thesis has been that Ex20 is a later interpolation from Deut5, and that Ex34 / the CC was the original code of Exodus. I'm not sure how widespread that thesis is today, but it's well attested from the past decade.

Let's be careful about how we identify mainstream scholarship "for several decades." Surely you know Matthews' book came out in 1923, it does not represent the last couple of decades' research or consensus. It is true that most scholarship from the late 19th early 20th century makes this ethical decalogue/ritual decalogue distinction. But we need to put that scholarship in context. Surely you know - this is common knowledge among Biblical scholars, because Wellhausen was explicit about this - Wellhausen's approach to history was that of a unlinear evolution from the barbaric to the civilized, and more precisely, from Judaism to Christianity. If you want a better sense of current scholarship read "Goethe's Analysis of Exodus 34 and Its Influence on Wellhausen: The Pfropfung of the Documentary Hypothesis" in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche 2002 (really, 2002) by University of Minnesota Biblical historian BM Levinson. As he points out it was Goethe who first made the distinction between a ritual decalogue and an ethical decalogue, because Goethe could not accept that the (ethical) Decalogue read by Protestants in church each Sunday cout be an essential text in Judaism. He proposed that the law of Moses was really the ritual decalogue, because he identified Judaism with ritual. The ethical decalogue, he argued, was written at a much later date when Israelite religion was in decline. The ethical decalogue thus represented a midway point in the evolution of religion, from Moses (obsession with ritual) to Jesus (fully ethical). As Levinson shows Wellhausen and generations of Christian scholars accepted this argument not because there was strong internal evidence to support it (e.g. linguistic, stylistic) let alone any external evidence to support it - that is to say, this is bad history - but simply because it suited their ideological program. Bible scholars (Gentile and Christian as well as Jewish) have come a long way since Goethe, Wellhausen, or Matthews. If you are going to quote different scholars, it would help to put them in context. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, to sum up your ramble:

• Mathews book came out in 1923

• The ethical/ritual distinction came out in the 19 and 20 century

• Wellhausen had some non-linear, particular views

• Goeth was the first to make the ethical/ritual distinction

• Levinson thinks Wellhausen is Christain-centric, not good history.

I think I get everything, except the point. What is your point? Steve kap (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the RD/ED distinction was current in the early 20th century, and has now been superseded with perspectives that are less biased in the fashion that Slrubenstein has described. I don't find this "a ramble" at all - lots better than whatever you usually come up with! JFW | T@lk 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, thats the point! I must have missed it, because it wasn't stated... and there was no supporting evidence. JFW, do you have any reliable sources that say that RD/ED are not current in the 21 the century? Anything to show these sources are mainstream? Also, Slrubenstein, I'm still waiting, any quotes that say any single peron, except you, see EX 34 has delivering 2 seperate, different documents? Our should we all just think you made this bit up? Steve kap (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you expecting me to prove a negative? JFW | T@lk 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, couple problems: one, you made a positive assertion, that RD/ED distinction haw been superseded; two, I didn’t ask for a proof. Proofs are for mathematicians. What I asked for was a source. You might have gathered that by my texts “ …do you have a reliable source…” I can’t help thinking that this conversation might go a bit better if you read a bit more carefully. So,,, do you have a source saying that RD/ED distintionis no longer current? Any indication that unsaid source reflect the mainstream view? Steve kap (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems pretty clear that SCC in a rare synonym for RD. The generic statement that scholars call Ex34 the SCC would seem to be misleading. (Literally true, there being more than one scholar which does so, but hardly scholars in general, or even commonly.) — kwami (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, I find your mulitiple sources, combined with relevant quotes quite convincing (Slrubenstein, take note). I suggest the article should present the tradition, AND present the text with the various understandings that Kawmi ref'ed. AND if Bright has an understanding that see Ex 34 as containing the 2nd coming of the 10c AND the small cc, we can present that too. We don't have to opion that there is a conflict between the text and the tradition. Nor do we have to go thru the mental gymnastics to square the two. We can present things as they are, with the understandings such as they are. What could be more fair than that? Steve kap (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, what is the source for your assertion that Ex20 is an extrapolation of Deut5 and that Ex34 is the original code of Exodus?

Steve (and Kwami), what changes do you propose to make to the article? JFW | T@lk 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

JFW, Do you see the text following the words "I suggest.."? This text describes my suggestions for changes at this time, with the specificity that I have to offer at this time.Steve kap (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg has asked you to suggested changes, based on sources. Just offering another opinion is not helpful here. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, what I suggest was a rather broad outline, a framework in which the sourced material could be placed. You might gathered that yourself. …by reading my suggestion. Do I need a source to suggest that we don’t have to offer and opinion as to whether the bible text conflict with the tradition? Do you really find that so unhelpful? Lets got off this tangent, and get back to discussing what the sources say, shall we? Steve kap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want a framework from you anymore. You are a single-purpose account whose only interest seems to be the pushing of a particular perspective in this article. At no point are you clear about what you want to do with the article. Several other editors want to know what exactly you want the article to say that hasn't already been said. If you can't do that, and instead expect Kwami to dig out the relevant sources for you, then perhaps it's better that you stop wasting our time. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"I don't want a framework"... well, don't know how to say this, but thats just to damn bad. I decide what my suggestion are going to be, and to what specificity. I think the specifics should go at the end of a discussion, not the beginning. You think I'm wasting time, well, my I suggest another hobby for you. Some people like stamp collecting, maybe give it a try. Your right to ask for soources, good thing there is NOT TIME LIMIT. We'll work on that. Meamwhile, it does seem to bother you that the section as is doesn't seem to conform to ANY OF THE CITED SOURCES. Could that because they tend to leed credence to some preheld belief of your? JWF, I think this little squabble between us is silly and pointlees. I'm much rather get back to a discussion of the sources, and what is mainstream. But if you want to continue this stupid little tangant you started, fine. But why not do it on our talk pages, I dont think any other editor give a damn about it. 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

(The threading is getting interesting here.) I have started no tangent. I want you to be more specific about what you are going to do with the article, and on the basis of which sources. I have many other interests on Wikipedia, so no need to consign me to philately. You, in contrast, only seem to have one hobbyhorse. Now, can we discuss your sources? JFW | T@lk 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

JFW ("what is the source for my assertion"), I'd have to dig them up again, but I've come across quite a few sources which propose (or support others' proposals) that only the CC is native to Ex, and that the ED was added later, copied from Deut.; also, that either the RD is a short version of the CC (which effectively makes it the SCC, tho no-one called it that), or that the long CC is an expansion of the RD. That doesn't necessarily mean that the CC/RD is older than the ED, only that it's older within Exodus. In fact, the last book I saw on this said they didn't think the RD could be all that old, because it deals with harvest festivals, which you could hardly expect in a pastoralist community. (This was part of a discussion on whether the RD/ED could be a continuation of Hammurabi's Code; the conclusion was that it could be cultural diffusion, but hardly a direct influence, because it's too late.)

I didn't bother to keep track, because I didn't think sources would actually matter. (No offense, but past experience has led to that expectation.)

As for what I'd like for the article, I'd like more acknowledgement up front that what is actually called the 10Cs in the Bible is not what currently defined as the 10Cs. There is of course the idea that the phrase was added to the RD at a later date—perhaps when the ED was itself added to Exodus (or so I've seen suggested), as well as other explanations as to why the phrase "ten commandments" appears in the RD rather than in the ED, but the fact remains that it does. True, it is very common to gloss that over, but that doesn't mean it isn't being glossed over. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, we've been over this before. This article is about the Ten Commandments, not the "Ritual Decalogue". Very lengthy discussions, with many individuals, strongly favored that point. And you've been asked to stop asserting as fact your opinion that the RD is "called" the 10 Commandments in the Bible. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I figured references wouldn't matter. JFW asked me what I wanted for this article, and that's what I want for this article: some basic factual statements that have been removed by the consensus that words don't mean what they say. The RD is called the TC's regardless of common attempts to deny it. Now, those words may have been added later, perhaps much later; as we've gone over before, there are scholars who believe that the ED is a later addition to Exodus from Deut, and the phrase TCs may have been added at that time too. (Personally that seems to be likely.) But regardless of who wrote it or when, the fact remains that the only time the phrase TCs is clearly identified with a passage in the Bible, it's identified with the RD, not the ED.

This is one source, Joseph Lewis, "The Ten Commandments" who in turn ref to K. Budde "Hisotry of Ancient Hebrew Literature"

"A condensation of these "covenants" into Ten Commandments gives one a better understanding of what was known as the earlier Decalogue of the Hebrew tribes. Professor K. Budde, in his History of Ancient Hebrew Literature, has done this, and lists the Commandments as follows:

Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. All the first-born are mine. (other skipped for brevity)Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. " Kwami, can you come up with others? Steve kap (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty in the RD article. The problem here, of course, is that references do not matter. What matters is the common conception of the TCs, and in the common conception they are the ED. And originally that may well have been the case, if the phrase was lifted from Deut., since the primary list there is the ED. (Of course, the TC's in Deut. are the terms of the Covenant, and the Covenant Code in Exodus is the terms of the Covenant, so the two should obviously be the same.) The topic of this article is not what the TCs are reported to be in the Bible, but rather what they have been conceived to be throughout history, and that's the ED. The consensus is that we should not report what the Bible actually says, or what scholars report the Bible actually says, but only popular conceptions of what the Bible says, and scholars who do not fundamentally disagree with those conceptions. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, well, I agree to a point. I agree that this article is about the popular understanding of the 10C. I think thats important. But it also talks about the biblical text that support/containt, in various forms, the 10C story. The article rightly talks about this text. But I feel it doesn't talk about the text in an unbiased, broad manner. And I think it should. The way to talk about the text is to discibe what mainstraim, credible, exports think of the text. What they think they mean, what there history is. We do our readers an injustice if we let people with a particular religous point of view cherry pick the text, and cherry pick the authors sited. That is my intention. I'll look at the RD page, but I won't have the reffed test handy. If you do, and if you agree with me, I encourage you to put some supporting quotes, those relevant to this disucussion, on this sight. Steve kap (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The RD page says that calling it the ritual decalogue or ritual 1o commandments is a disambiguating term to separate it from the other set of 10 commandments, the ethical decalogue. I think this page should have both sets of the 10 commandments, or talk about them, and a separate page talk about the ethical or moral decalogue. Actually, upon further reading that page, it looks more suitable as the generic 10 commandments page, as it talks about both sets. So, This page should be renamed to ethical decalogue, the RD page should be renamed to the 10 comandments, and have some stuff changed, and another RD page should be made, which focuses only on the RD.

It is not a disambiguating term in the sense meant by Wikipedia policy. It is only a particular group of scholars who used RD and ED for distinct texts. It would be beter to avoid the word "disaambiguation" which has such a specific meaning for WP editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what 'dab' means to WP editors. Our articles are supposed to be written in normal English, not in WP jargon. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But it does matter what "disambiguation term" means to the general Wikipedia reader, and it means nothing to them. As you say, "Our articles are supposed to be written in normal English, not in WP jargon". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what changes, if any, are now being proposed here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this section back to where it began, maybe the other threads that grow from this could go off there there one section of discussion.

It started with me expressing confusion about "the 2nd revelation" paragraph, how it related to the small CC and the 10C. Slrubenstein explressed that the article "clearly" stated that "It (the small covenent code) is a separate document given to Moses along with the second inscription of the decalogue.." (this in ref to Ex 34.

Thats all fine as far it goes, only trouble is, Slrubenstein gave ZERO sources that make this claim. None. Not a one. This claim, that EX 34 give 2 seperate documents, seems to be Slrubensteins invention alone. Kwamis research of the sources came up with NONE that have this strange interpratation. Its not mainstream. Its not even fringe. It appears to be a wholesale fabrication. As such, clearly we should get rid of it. Steve kap (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What specific text in the article related to this do you believe is problematic? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hear the sentence in question:

"This event occasions a recapitulation of the account of God's inscribing two stone tablets Exodus 34:1-4, and conveying the Book of the Covenant Exodus 34:10-28..."

The "and" in this sentence is at issue. Slrubenstein claims that this "clearly" expresses that 2 seperate documents, the 2nd coming of the 10C AND the small CC, were delivered at this occasion. Now, we can argue how "clear" this is (I'd say that its ambiguous as hell, and I'd guess that this ambiguity is on purpose). But, my overiding objection, is that this reading seems to Slrubensteins reading alone. Their is NO source that says 2 seperate documents were delevered that section of the bible. Seems nobody but Slrubenstein reads those verses in that way. 99.72.26.10 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the text? If so, what is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you, is it OK to have text the expresses a reading that is not found in any source? Do you dispute that this is the case here? Steve kap (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what change you want to make. The sentence in question has three citations, by the way. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Jayjg, there ARE 3 citations! But,, and its a very big but, and a but that you really should haven gotten by now... none, not a one,, zero none of them make the claim thats being made. You might have gotten that by reading the convesation so far. My suggestion would be wholesale deletion, but I'd be open to less draconion suggetions. Really, Jayjg, your "I don't understand" bit is warying a bit thin. Try reading. Steve kap (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein says they support the statement. Have you read all these sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, when asked for a quote to support this rather strange position, Slrubenstein come up with zippidy do da. Jayjg, don't you thing thats rather strange? After all, he prosumably has access to these source (I don't ); and yet, when asked repeatly for a support quote, he stays mum. If he source said anything like what he claims, don't you think he'd use them to shut me up my now? Do you imagine that Slrubenstein LIKE the implication that he's a fabricator? And yet,,, silence. Its his strange claim. Let him support it. Steve kap (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer Jayjg's question please? JFW | T@lk 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When he says he doesn't have access to the sources, and asks for quotations from them to verify they support the claim, that pretty clearly suggests he hasn't read them. — kwami (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

kwami, have you ever wondered, if he has not read the sources, how can he write in good faith, "none, not a one,, zero none of them make the claim thats being made." How would he know this, if he has not read the sources? More peculiar, is he not acknowledging that I provided sources ... but also wrote "Slrubenstein gave ZERO sources that make this claim. None. Not a one." In fact, how can he write this, and also write "Yes, yes, Jayjg, there ARE 3 citations?" So here we have it: according to Steve Kap I have provided ZERO sources and three sources. According to Steve kap, he has not read these sources, but he knows that none of them make the claims I got from them? The only reasonable conclusion is that Steve kap is irrational. I don't have time to waste on someone who is here only to insult me and disparage any research I did - why would any reasonable person tolerate it? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding SLR. I'll take this point by point:

•"..according to Steve Kap I have provided ZERO sources.."- no, I've said that you haven't provided any quote, you've provided no evidence that these sources support your rather particular claim. You might have gathered that by now. I made the same point earlier.

•"..that none of them make the claims I got from them?"- True, I don't KNOW that. I can only infer it from your refusal to provide a quote from your sources to support your position.

•"The only reasonable conclusion is that Steve kap is irrational."- Well, another possible conclusion is that you made a claim that your sources can't support.

•"I don't have time to waste"- How you spend your time is your business. But if it were me, I'd spend some of it defending my reputation, and pursuing a better article; that is, if any of the sources supported my position.

•"..who is here only to insult me and disparage any research I did"- No, I'm here to pursue a better article.

•"Why would any reasonable person tolerate it?"- Good point. Why do you? Why not just type a line or two, from the sources that are in front of you, that support your position. Then all you'd have to is argue that it’s a mainstream view, and wouldn't that shut me up but good. But, for some reason, you don't. Curious that. Steve kap (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

""Slrubenstein gave ZERO sources that make this claim. None. Not a one." That's a direct quote of a statement you made just a day ago. In light of that, perhaps you'd like to rethink your claim that you only said he hadn't "provided any quote"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite right Jayjg. I should have said “Srubensteing has provide no evidence that any of these sources make this claim”. I regret the error. Steve kap (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Division according to different religions

In this section it says "†The Catholic Church uses the translation 'kill'.[24]"

It does not say which religions do not, if any. And if none there is no need to single out the Catholic Church on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Small Convenent Code vs Ritual Decalogue

As is appear the be the concence that the SCC and the RD are one and the same, and that the RD is by far the more common term (see the RD talk page, the SCC section), I propuse that the last sentence on the "second revelation" section be modified to use the term RD in place of the SCC. Steve kap (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not represented Slrubenstein's responses there. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

rrr, right, JFW, that probably because,,, he hasn't responded yet. And if he did, wouldn't it be here, with this name by it? Would he really need me to represent it? Would he really want me to? ~sigh~ This observation aside, I hope people feel free to comment ON THE SUGGESTION. Steve kap (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were to represent Slrubenstein (though I don't think it would be fair), I might well quote him from the RD talk page:

"You have documented that there are more published references to RD in your sample than "small covenant code." -Slrubenstein.

"no one has ever contested that there are reliable sources documenting that there are a group of scholars who view this section of Ex. 34 as a ritual decalogue" -Slrubenstein.

"there is a long tradition (two hundred years) of scholars identifying this passage of Ex 34 as a ritual decalogue" -Slrubenstein

But I think it would be better for him to provide his own responce, if he so choose, to the specific suggestion made. That way he could provide proper context. But, JFW, wouldn't it be better for you to speak for youself? Steve kap (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please spare me your sarcasm ("rrr, right" etc). Unfortunately, Google is not the greatest arbiter in this type of disagreements. Slrubenstein has access to the relevant academic sources. It seems to be his view that the name "small covenant code" is a better name. Personally I think it is incorrect to label the section "Ritual Decalogue" because it presupposes that these lines were "intended" to be a Decalogue - the evidence for that is highly circumstantial. JFW | T@lk 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GoogleBooks is a decent arbiter. SSC would seem to be quite marginal, and RD a much more common name. We could also take Aaron's approach and call it the Exodus-34 Decalogue, as a descriptive rather than common name, though you might have the same objections to that. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responces, JFW and Kwami. I'd like to respond to JFW point by point: "Google is not the greatest arbiter in this type of disagreements"- No? It seems pretty good to me. Do you suspect a bias? What would you think is a better, unbiased arbiter?

"Slrubenstein has access to the relevant academic sources."- SLR is welcome to share from his sources. But he isn't a pulished source. And those that do publish seem to prefer the RD term.

"..it (use of RD) presupposes that these lines were "intended" to be a Decalogue"- and yet, those that do the research and publish books tend to pref that term. So what does that tell you? One could critize the so called (rarely caled) SCC in the same way, its use presupposes that the CC and this text has something to do with eachother. A view apparently only held by the smallest of minorities.

"..the evidence for that is highly circumstantial." Actualy, most historical investigations use circumstantial evidence. There are very few eyes witnesses, after all. Circumstantial evidence can be quite strong. A friend of mind convicted a murder on circumstantial evidence. What you might have meant was that the evidence isn't convincing TO YOU. If only you could get that opinion published, you migh have something. Untill them, I'm afraid we are lumbered with thoses we HAVE published. And the VAST majority use the RD term. Anything else? Steve kap (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it, then, that there is no further objection to my suggestion?Steve kap (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that SLR and JFW object has already been made clear. The fact that they don't respond to your repetitions of the same points merely indicates they aren't repeating themselves, not that they've changed their views. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It well maybe be that this has been discussed before, but new information and new understandings will come to light from time to time. Fortunately for us there is NO TIME LIMIT. As you well know.

As to JFW’s objection, I’ve answered them, apparently to his satisfaction. As to SLR, given the current state of the discussion, I have no idea what his objections may be at this time. It would be to him to present them would it not?

If YOU have any objections, would you please state them? My suggestion stands, for the reasons stated, and I invite comment. Steve kap (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One could take the lack of reponce in 2 ways. Either all objections have been addressed, and, in light of new evidence and understanding, some people have changed there minds. Or, maybe peole have given up on rational disucussion, think that a conversation ends when they say it end, and are not open to evidence and reasoning, and would rather rely on edit waring to get there way. Let us see. Steve kap (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My objections stand but I think everyone is tired of arguing with you. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I answered your objections point by point. But if you can express and further objection, or if any of my answers were not enough, please, let me know. But, if you simply don't think this point is worth your time, or if you hold your opinion dispite having all of your objection answered, then yes, maybe it would be best if you left the disussion to others. Steve kap (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RD is clearly the common term. SCC has 3 GBook hits and 2 more on GScholar. Even given that Google isn't the greatest arbiter (I agree), the difference from c. 400 GBooks hits for RD (406, but there's some duplication), plus 114 on GScholar (some overlapping w GBooks) is certainly significant. Or, restricting the search to after the year 2000, 99 RD vs 1 SCC or GBooks, 28 RD vs 0 SCC on GScholar. "Cultic Decalogue", which I thought was obsolete, has 35 GBook hits since 2000 and so is clearly more common than SCC. Even "Ritual Ten Commandments" has 3 hits since 2000 on GBooks. So SCC is hardly the only term we want to use. — kwami (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection

Looking thru the history I see lots of vandalism. What do you think of semi-protection or PC protection? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Table in intro

Ten Commandments by religion/denomination
Commandment	Jew ish	Christian
Commandment	Jew ish	Oth er	Orth o dox	Cath olic Luth eran
I am the Lord your God	1		1	1
You shall have no other gods before me	2	1	1
You shall not make for yourself an idol	2	2	2
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain	3	3	3	2
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy	4	4	4	3
Honor your father and mother	5	5	5	4
You shall not kill/murder†	6	6	6	5
You shall not commit adultery	7	7	7	6
You shall not steal††	8	8	8	7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor	9	9	9	8
You shall not covet‡ your neighbor's wife	10	10	10	9
You shall not covet‡ anything that belongs to your neighbor	10	10	10	10

I added the table to the right to the intro. What do you think? Is that helpful? I think that it is very helpful and the primary reason people come to this article is to see the list. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a nice table, but it makes the lede too crowded. I'm going to remove it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you define too crowded? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, stop reinserting the table and listen to your fellow contributors. This doesn't fit - the table cells are so small that words are broken up in 2-3 character chunks. It is also not helpful - it tries to treat an aspect of the topic before we have even covered the basics. JFW | T@lk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First Revelation, Second Revelation

I assume that these section titles ref to the 1st and 2nd revelation of the 10C. But its confusing because similair terminalogy is used to ref to the 10C and the coventent code. That is, they (the 10C and CC) are ref to together as "these 2 revelations". So it seems to me "revelations" is an ambiguous term. Maybe we should use as title "The first set of stones" and "The 2nd set of stone." Steve kap (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence should not be written as a fact. "...is a list of religious and moral imperatives that were given..." <== Instead it should be written something like (Believers) or (Followers) or (... These religions believe) or hold this to be true.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.226.20 (talk • contribs)

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 17:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rrr JFW, you say "sofixit", then some does, then your revert, without any improvment to the underlying problem, which, apperenly, you recognize (as evidenced by the "so fix it"). So, if you don't like how others fix it, would you kidnly fix it the way you would have it. Steve kap (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Was a bad fix, clearly. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh

Users Kwamikagami and Steve kap seem determined that the lede of the article must use the term "Yahweh" - despite the fact that "Yahweh" is a technical term unfamiliar to most readers, a linguistic guess regarding the Hebrew pronunciation (3,000 years ago) of the Hebrew name for God. Is there any rationale for doing this? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP should not declare that Jehovah is "the Lord". Several other recent wordings addressed this acceptably. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to use Yahweh, it's not in the text. Then again, neither is the stuff about 'one true god'. I changed the lede to make it more accurately reflect the text. Feel free to revert. Zargulon (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it really is in the text, but not directly in most English texts.. If you go to most English bibles, you'll see a code in the front. It could say, for example, that THE LORD (all caps)is used in place of Yahweh, that "lord" is used in place of Elomim, etc. Steve kap (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve, "Yahweh" isn't in the Hebrew text of the first commandment either.. Which text do you think it is in..? Zargulon (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

rrr, well,,, ofcourse,,, the orignal was in Hebrew text was...... in HEBREW!!! And guess what? the rest of our bible refs are translation into English as well. You could just as well (just as stupidly) say that 'we don't know what any of the commandments mean in English, because the orginals were in Hebrew.' This is an English wiki. We translate into English. Yahwey is the most common English translation of the Hebrew name. Steve kap (talk)

But the text also identifies Moses as the writer, so this is still misleading. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the idea that Moses wrote the bible is a tradition, but I bet you won't find it in the bible. Steve kap (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It says (after saying that God wrote them) that God dictated and Moses wrote them. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I missed your point. "The creator of the commandments" could well ref to Y OR Moses. I'll clarify. Steve kap (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to answer Jayjd point by poInt-

"..use the term "Yahweh..."- Yes, because thats his name. Thats the name of the god that the text ref to. And in the orignal, they DO ref to him by name. Try "Yahweh" in wiki and you'll learn.

"Yahweh is a technical term..."- Its not more a technical term than "Joe" or "Sam" or "Thor" or "Baal". Its a name. No tehcnical knowledge is needed to understand it. Enthelpy is a techincal term. Proper nouns are just names.

"...unfamiliar to most readers."- Good point, why don't we follow it with "the god of the Isrealites" (like I did, and you reverted), so such readers will know what it means. There are SOME readers that go to wiki to LEARN. Not just see what they already think they know.

"Is there any rationale for doing this?"- Yes, so the reader knows WHICH god the 10C ids as "the one true god." "The Lord" doesn't work, anyone can ref to their god as the lord. "The god that did x and did y", well, thats a bit clunky, and can still be ambiguous.

Now I have a question. Is there any rational reason NOT to use the proper noun? Its short, to the point, its what the "holy text" uses, and it informs the reader. The only IRRATIONAL reason I can think of, is that certain religious people have a taboo about using the name of their god directly. But, wiki's voice shouldn't be constrainted by such stuff. Thats cencorship. Steve kap (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

An excellent "rational reason" is that the original text doesn't use Yahweh in the first commandment where you suggest WP should use it. Zargulon (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does. It has יהוה. It's just pointed to read as "Lord" rather than as "Jehovah" to avoid taking it in vain. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does have יהוה.. but this has a number of readings and translations as you point out.. Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah, Adonai, Lord etc. I'm not sure that avoiding taking it in vain is the only reason for saying 'Lord'.. don't forget no-one knows how it was pronounced. Zargulon (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So,,,, the text say יהוה, which is widely translated as YHWH or Yahwey. So, sounds to me like we should use Yahwey, the english translation of what is in the oringal.

As to 'no-one knows how it was pronounced', I say 'I don't care'. This is a written wiki, after all.

As to "I'm not sure that avoiding taking it in vain is the only reason for saying 'Lord'", I don't really care what you're sure of, and its not at all to the point either way. But wiki artile on Yahwey says that 'Lord' was read aloud when 'Yahew' was written, out of religous custom, respect. Steve kap (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon, I love your 'please doen't edit war, but allow me to edit war and win' whine. So trasparent. You say Yahwey is a mistranslation.. Ok,,, any evidence for that? Seems to be the term of choice among the PUBLISHED. Is there a particular reason that we should give weight to your view that Yahwey is a mistranslation? Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC).

The traditional transliteration (not translation) is "Jehovah". That would answer the objection that the name Yahweh is too obscure.

It's not "Adonai". It was voweled as Adonai to remind readers not to speak it out loud, but rather to substitute "Lord". — kwami (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That may have been the original intention, but Adonai (in Jewish circles) and The Lord (in English speaking circles) have practically become names for God, and they function as a translation of the tetragrammaton. That said, I don't object to leaving Lord out if there is consensus for it. Zargulon (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jehovah is obsolete. But, you will notice taht Jayjd and Zargulon don't offer ANY subsitutute!!! Why is that, we should wonder.

Well, if you give God a name, it lets people think "why would god need a name". And the answer is obvious, its because there have been thousands of gods presented. The name of god, Yahwey, tells people WHICH god you are talking about!! But, if there are so many possible gods, whats special about MY god. Hence, the taboo. Lets test it. Jay, Zargulon, what name would YOU suggest in place? Steve kap (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "The Lord" means the desert god, Yahweh, betrays some pretty myopic Jewish/Christian centric thinking. "The Lord" means whatever god the speaker thinks is his lord, if he thinks a god is his lord. We aren't writting for Jewish and Christian circles. Steve kap (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I never thought Jehovah was obsolete (and it isn't), but according to ngram, Yahweh tied it in the 1940s, and is now at least 4x as common. And that's not figuring in that half of the uses of Jehovah today are in Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, then, because to me Jehovah seems like English, and Yahweh doesn't. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to hold a hard line on this. The text say יהוהwhich, from what I gather, is best rendered as Yahweh in English. If others can come up with a better rendering, have at it. Otherwise, they I invite them to go pound sand. Steve kap (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon already did com up with a "better rendering" - much more clear, grammatically correct, and accurate to the source. You really do seem enamored with term Yahweh, but without a particular rationale other than personal preference. Please don't "hold a hard line" by insisting on bad writing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? What was it then? Surely your not ref to his 'the god that did this and did that'. Thats not a name. Names are designed to avoid such circumlocution. Surley you don't mean 'the lord', any peron that believes any any god could call him 'lord'. In fact, most do. So,,, soo,,, what is this "better rendering" that you are ref to? Steve kap (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

God has more than one name in the Penatateuch, and "YHVH" has more than one suggested English pronunciation. Since you've included in the lede both the name and the "circumlocution" to explain what you mean by the name, it's obvious the name isn't necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You see, Jayjd, circumlocution is talking around a word, without using it. It’s usually done when someone doesn’t remember or can’t pronounce a given word, but it’s sometimes used to avoid saying a taboo word. It helps to know what words mean before you use them.Steve kap (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the 3.5 billion followers of Christianity and Islam, not to mention the vast majority of English speakers, Christian or not, are far more familiar with the God of the Bible than the fairly obscure technical term Yahweh, which itself expresses a POV about pronunciation. There appears to be no good reason to use it in the lede, and plenty of reasons not to. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I suggest following it with "the god of the Isrealiste". For the 3rd time. Tell me, when you were a child, would you plug your fingers in your ears and say 'I'm not listening!!' when some said something that you didn't wish to acknowledge? Its not charming in children, and less for an adult. Steve kap (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg (should I call you Jajg, our would be be better to say "he that wrote an opinion on 2:47, 22 May in this page"), I forgot to address the ".. expresses a POV about pronumciation" point. My responces is, you have got to be kidding me. You're saying we can't use the mainstream, most common transliteration of the Hebrew, because some people don't agree its represents the correct pronunciation? Are you serious? Is pronunication SO important in a WRITTEN FORM that NO TERM AT ALL must be used, rather than to use one that MIGHT represnt a WRONG PRONUNCIATION? Is that all you got? Does this even convince you? Aren't you a little embarrased at the weakness of the this line of argument? Sorry for not addressing it earlier. Steve kap (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you need to explain what the term means, then it doesn't really belong in the lede; the explanation is enough. Moreover, the phrase "god of the Israelites" is reductive and misleading; the god referred to in the 10 Commandments is also the god referred to in the rest of the Bible, the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, known in English as "God". Your wording will confuse the average reader (apparently deliberately); Zargulon's, on the other hand, clarifies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Woow, look at the current version:

"The Ten Commandments identify their source as the God who enacted the Exodus; prohibit having other gods before him, and making or worshiping idols; threaten punishment for those who reject himP and promise love for those who love him; forbid blasphemy of the divine name; demand observance of the Sabbath and honoring one's parents; prohibit murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and coveting of one's neighbor's goods."

So, basicly, the Ten commandments identity their source as the god that enacted Exodus, prohibited other gods, forbid (SIC)idol worship etc. In other words, the source of the 10C is the god that wrote the 10C. Great. Tautology to the max. Can anyone tell me, why not use the dudes NAME? Funny how nobody seems to answer that question. But, really well already know, don't we? You can either do it right, our you'll look foolish. Up to you. Steve kap (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly what the 10 Commandments says, and is a more clear and more accurate rendering of its contents than the version you were proposing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. What the Bible says is "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." That is not a tautology. I agree with Jayjg that it is not important at this point to discuss the various names of God in Judaism, all of which have specific meanings depending on their context, as it would distract from the flow of the article.

Steve kap, could I also ask you to remain civil? You are essentially accusing Jayjg of deliberately confusing the reader. JFW | T@lk 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond point by point

-"What the Bible says is "I am the LORD your God,"--Thats as may be, but that not what how the article read when I edited it. It said, 'The 10C declares that the LORD is the one true God' or some such. Which certainly is tautology, once you realise (which you should by now) that ANY god would be ref'ed to as "Lord" by that gods' follows. I don't see the need for you to confuse the issue in this way.

-"...as it would distract from the article"-- So, you think the word jumble of a senence in its present form is better than a name, and a 5 word explaination? Remarkable.

-"...reamain civil"-- Notice the tone that was set to start with. I respond in kind. Steve kap (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

-"You are essentially accusing Jayjg of deliberately confusing the reader."--No, you must read more closely. I was, and am, accusing Jayjd of ignoring all points made that he disagrees with, like a child with his fingers in his ears yelling "La! La! La!" Steve kap (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

JWF, your "You are essentially accusing Jayjg of deliberately confusing the reader." I think you got that backwards. Jayjd wrote to me,"Your wording will confuse the average reader (apparently deliberately". Now, I have no idea why he would think that, and he doesn't find it necessary to back up his accusations. But, now that you know the source, and your error, will you now chide Jayjd to act civil? After all, it was his comment that you found objectionable (when you thought I made it). Or, is it more civil when that person that you agree with makes the statement? Steve kap (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a passage within the Bible, forming part of the culture of Jews and Christians till up to today. We should therefore translate the word יהוה in the same way as whatever translation we are using. That way, it stays comprehensible. Appeals to origins usually muddy the issue: are we always to say "Homeros" rather than Homer, and "Khmt" rather than Egypt?

There is a legitimate place for the word "Yahweh" in histories of religion discussing origins, for example if you were saying "The Israelite Yahweh seems to have borrowed certain attributes from the Canaanite El". Otherwise, in my experience it is mostly found in childish polemics of the "anthropological intimidation" school. C. S. Lewis, writing about his adolescence, says "I was at the stage where a boy thinks it extremely telling to call God Jahweh and Jesus Jeshua." Come on guys, we're not in the fifth form now. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The part that your missing, the key to this hold thing realy, is that while there is only one Jesus, there is more than one "God". Thats why, when ref to a particular god, its a good idea to ref to him by name. Steve kap (talk)

I am the Lord your God andnames of God in Judaism

JFW made a couple points. One was the bible actually says 'I am the LORD your God'. That made me think, because my understanding is that, in most English bibles, LORD is used ONLY when tranlating 'Yahweh'. So I wiki'ed it. And guess what?? Turns out I'm write. Infact, some Enlgish bibles USE 'Yahweh', as a more direct translation. Check out the article.

I was also interested in "the names of god in Juaism". And guess what? They are moslys circumloctions of Yahweh!!! Check it out: Adonai-- thats what was supposed to be said in place of....YAHWEH!! HaShem--that was said to make doubley sure you didn't say...YAHWEH!! Jahweh-- another way to write, in English... YAHWEH!! Jehovah--usually considered a mistaken translation of...YAHWEH!! Its all there in the article.

I see a common theme here, see if you agree. One, the proper name of the jewish god is, in English, most common useage, is YAHWEH. Two, there seems to be a jewish averion to calling YAHWEH by name. Thats fine for Jewish circles, but should WIKI respect such religous rules. Steve kap (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear what your posting has to do with this article's content. No-one has suggested that "WIKI" should "respect such religious rules". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As you might have gathered, I'm proposing that Yahweh be used. To ID the charactor that says "You will have no other gods before me". You say that this has nothing to do with respecting religious rules, I simply don't believe you. Steve kap (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (above) was against using it, for the reasons given above, which had nothing to do with "respecting religious rules". Regarding what you believe, Wikipedia isn't interested in the beliefs of its editors, but it would be a good idea if you read WP:AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My dear friend. Anyone who would use the word "consesus" to describe the above either doesn't know what the word means, or is advertising his willingness to say anything to get his way. I don't much care which it is in your case. Of course "consesus" means a meeting of the mind, some broad agreement, that type of thing. The very thing that we DON'T see above, as anyone can see. What we have above, Jayjg, is called an ARGUMENT. And, because I've answered all of your rather spurious objections, one that you appear to be loosing badly. Bad set of fact might be to blame. If I'm wrong, if you have an argument that I've let unanswered, please do point it out to me, I'd like to be on the same page. Or, if not, I can recap the state of discussion as I see it. Steve kap (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. Not using YHVH or (English) Yahweh, the name of the god in question, is pointless elision. That was the name used in the primary source. Someone above argued that some people won't be familiar with the word, so we shouldn't employ it. As Steve pointed out, we are here to explain, not to inexplicably avoid using the correct name for the god, one of hundreds in the pantheon of the time, who authored the commandments. To not name him would be negligent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited the second paragraph of the lead to include the name of the god who gave the commandments to Moses, Yahweh. JFW reverted and below explained he did this because "I don't believe there is consensus that His name should be spelt thus." Are you referring to academic consensus, JFW? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we want the name there (and IMO it's appropriate), per WP:COMMONNAME it would be either Yahweh or Jehovah. (I prefer the latter.) The ancient Hebrew pronunciation is almost irrelevant; we're using normal English, not advocating a particular reconstruction. I agree that if we were discussing the Hebrew pronunciation, we'd need to be more circumspect, but those details are covered at the Yahweh article. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The common name is "the Lord". Why do you think JFW was referring to academic consensus? Zargulon (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the god was YHVH (English, Yahweh). "The Lord" is a later euphemism, a placeholder for those whose beliefs don't permit them to say the name. I do not know what JFW was referring to, that is why I asked the question. Yahweh is the most common English rendering of the name. That is what we should use, notwithstanding debates about what vowels were used in Moses' time.

I think the issue here is accuracy rather than religious rules. Yahweh or Jehovah is simply not the correct way to pronounce the word יהוה. The vowels which sometimes appear with this word (and from which the name Yahweh and Jehovah derive) are those which appear in the word Adonai and are there to remind Jews to say Adonai when they see the word יהוה. I don't think common usage is a particularly relevant criteria, even if Jahweh/Jehovah are well-understood terms, this is after all an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Ultimately, if these terms are used, at the very least there ought be a reference to the origins of the word and the error contained within.

Below, I argue it is possible to avoid the term "myth", to avoid offending believers, without affecting the integrity of this article. That is not the case with regard to the name of the god involved in this narrative. Leaving out his name leaves out the name of one of the central characters. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about consensus on this talkpage, not academic consensus. I think the text is just as clear without using one name or another, but I will not revert JHeald (talk · contribs) without some further views here.

This article has much more important issues than the (excusez le mot) tinkering that is being done consistently by various editors. It would be helpful if we could make a list of the actual content issues in this article so these can be resolved through consensus. JFW | T@lk 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

JHeald's edit (YHWH) names the god without raising issues of pronunciation/spelling, so seems a reasonable compromise. The text is better for naming the god involved. As Steve (I think) said above, we're writing for non-Christians and non-Jews too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I think you should realize that the suggestion that avoiding explicitly naming the tetragrammaton is not a sop to Christian and Jewish editors, it is a compromise between people who think that it should be "The Lord", and people who think it should be some transliteration. Either you have not read the preceding debate and consensus, or I think your assertion is slightly dishonest. Zargulon (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon, I think you realize that making a statement and supporting it are two different things. I'd suggetst that avoiding explicitly naming the tetragrammaton is exactly a capictulation Christian and Jewish editors. If not, there is a statistlicly unlikely coorilation that needs some explaining. I don't buy the cooisence theory. Steve kap (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve, what correlation are you talking about.. do you know something about the religions of the contributors to this page that I don't? And why do you think that WP naming the tetragrammaton is something that Jewish and Christian editors would be against? Orthodox Jews have to avoid mentioning or writing God's name, but they don't have to stop other people doing it. Your conspiracy theory is absurd. Why don't you face up to the fact that the people who disagree with you are just trying to improve WP at least as much as you are..? Zargulon (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please strike the "dishonest" comment, Zargulon (diff); that kind of talk is offensive, and poisons the atmosphere on discussion pages. You can do that by inserting <s> before and </s> after the comment. I came here because I saw a message on JFW's talk page, which has been on my watch list since I posted there 6 months ago. I followed the link out of interest, and thought I had something to offer to the discussion. I would advise all editors here to reign in the snark. It just wastes time and usually precludes conciliation.

Zargulon, I have deleted the following

No-one is suggesting using "Lord", which is hardly a "euphemism".. we had an agreed compromise which did not use "Lord". Nonetheless Yahweh is not the most common *name* or *way of referring* to the the tetragrammaton, which is what matters, even if Yahweh or Jehovah is the most common English transliteration of it. Zargulon (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

from above. Feel free to insert this comment where appropriate. Please do not break up other editors' contributions to insert your comments. Please read WP:TALK and abide by it. Your rearranging of the talk page makes it difficult to follow the chronology and, in some instances, difficult to understand who said what in relation to what.

Now, to respond to your comments. I had read the entire talk page before joining the discussion. It is my view that the name of the god said to have given Moses the commandments was YHVH, or YHWH, commonly rendered in English, Yahweh. Other denominations are euphemisms, inserted into the text to help readers avoid saying the name aloud. It is entirely appropriate to name the god that is said to have given the commandments to Moses. It would be negligent not to. If you believe using one of the euphemisms rather than the name itself, or omitting the name entirely would somehow be appropriate, please explain your reasoning here, and avoid ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame you took so long to respond to my comments. Please familiarize yourself with the correct meaning of ad hominem, and if you wish, explain why you have brought that up. Als please review argument by assertion, note that is a logical fallacy, and desist from it. As for my reasoning for not mentioning the name, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For purposes of being seen to assume good faith in the face of all the evidence, I will repeat for the last time the two independent reasons for not naming God in the lead:

There is no agreement on how to name him - your assertion that some variant of Yahweh is superior does not carry more weight than that of the other editors who disagree and have given at least as extensive reasoning as you for their view, and that in the face of being poisonously and absurdly misrepresented as a Judeo-Christian cabal.
The version of the commandments in the lead is a summary, and it is no more 'negligent' not to name God that it is not to write out the commandments in full, which, rightly, no-one is suggesting.

Zargulon (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You told me I had either not read the preceding discussion or was being dishonest. Well, I had read the prior discussion, so you were accusing me of dishonesty. This is called an ad hominem and that kind of behaviour is actively discouraged at Wikipedia. You are not the only one on this page ABFing and engaging in low-level incivility, so probably you've just adopted the tone of the page. You all need to drop it. In discussing very personal topics like faith, politeness and respect are essential.

You argue that there is no agreement on how to name him. I argue that the choice is between YHWH, the transliteration of the original, and Yahweh or Jehovah, anglicized representations of JHWH. All other biblical denominations are euphemisms. I am happy with any of these three. JHWH is more accurate, but the others may be more familiar to readers. Whichever we use will be blue linked to an explanatory page. What do you think? What is your preferred rendering of the name of the god in question? As for it being inappropriate for the lead because the lead is a summary, I don't follow your line of reasoning here. "YHWH," is four characters and a punctuation mark. Given it is the name of the deuteragonist in the drama, I argue that four characters and a punctuation mark is not too much space to sacrifice in the introduction. In summary, I assert, not without foundation, that the name of the god of Israel is YHWH, and since he is a central character in the narrative this article is about, he should be named in the lead, as Moses is named in the lead.

You seem to be asserting that YHWH is not the proper name of the god in question, or that other words are his proper name. Apart from asserting that, you need to prove it. The case for YHWH being the proper name can be found in Names of God in Judaism, Jehovah and Tetragrammaton and probably a dozen other Wikipedia articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lord is the rendition of the tetragrammaton most familiar to readers. Even if "The Lord" were a euphemism, WP would still use "the Lord" because it is also usual name in English - a "name" means "how something is referred to" - the fact that it is not a transliteration is irrelevant. That fact may be distateful to some, but until it changes WP should reflect it. Please stop constantly demanding that I repeat what is already on this talk page. You also seem to be confused about proof (this hardly a case of proof but of persuasion), about burden of proof (it lies with everybody other than yourself for some reason) and about what issue you wanted me to "explain my reasoning here" for (whether to put a name of God in the lead at all, rather than what that name should be). I did exactly as you asked and it will be difficult to reach any conclusion if you keep changing the subject. Perhaps you don't want to..? Zargulon (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be that "the Lord" is the rendition of the tetragram that most readers are familiar with. But it is not a name. It is not a proper noun. That point has been made over and over. Its not confusing the point, it IS the point. Steve kap (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthonycole, please feel free to ignore Steve's further digression and return to addressing my arguments for why the name of God does not need to feature in the lead of the article. Zargulon (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Zargulon, how very rude. But more to the point, how incorrect:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, you reffered to "the Lord" as a NAME. Specificly, the name of the jewish god. But, of course, as has been pointed out over and over, "the Lord" is not a proper noun, not a name. It could ref to any god. Or any ruler, for that matter. You go on to say, "a name means how something is referred to ", well, that true only in an loose, imprecise way. By that very bad critiria, the name of my car is "my car", because thats how I refer to it most offect. Clearly only an idiot, or someone not familiar with English, or someone trying to make a spurious point, would make such a mistake, or use such a loose definition in an argument, when the definition of the word in question is key to the argument.

Now, my previous retort addressed this error of yours. Sorry I didn't do it fully, I will not make that mistake again. You are NOT free to exclude argurments that you don't like, or attempt to exclude people from the discussion. Its very rude, and it won't go unanswered. Do you understand my point, Zargulon? To avoid wasting reader's time, please address any personal comments to my talk page, where I will give it all the attention that it deserves. Is that OK with you, Zorgulon?Steve kap (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The issues of it being a technical term, not well known to general audiences, and the issue of pronunciation, have still not been addressed. Nor has the issues of it being misleading - in that it implies that "YHVH" imposed a different Ten Commandments than the God of the Bible (and Jewish and Christian thought). Finally, I will copy the comment made by Sir Myles in the section above:

The article is about a passage within the Bible, forming part of the culture of Jews and Christians till up to today. We should therefore translate the word יהוה in the same way as whatever translation we are using. That way, it stays comprehensible. Appeals to origins usually muddy the issue: are we always to say "Homeros" rather than Homer, and "Khmt" rather than Egypt?

There is a legitimate place for the word "Yahweh" in histories of religion discussing origins, for example if you were saying "The Israelite Yahweh seems to have borrowed certain attributes from the Canaanite El". Otherwise, in my experience it is mostly found in childish polemics of the "anthropological intimidation" school. C. S. Lewis, writing about his adolescence, says "I was at the stage where a boy thinks it extremely telling to call God Jahweh and Jesus Jeshua." Come on guys, we're not in the fifth form now.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon, sorry for the delay. I'm very busy and mostly out of wireless range just now. I'll respond to your well-made points above when I'm back in civilisation and can do justice to them. I'm not expecting urgent change here, and am happy to engage in civil discussion, and hopefully be persuaded, or persuade. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

By all means, take your time. Zargulon (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Jayjg, could you please tell me how(, I'm tempted to say 'I gods name',) a proper noun could be a technical term? Does it take some special techigical knowledge to understand the the Norse god is called "Thor", and the Jewish god is called "YHVH" ? Steve kap (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"YHWH" is a term used typically by scholars to differentiate between what they see as different beliefs in different Semitic gods. What you are referring to as "YHWH" or "Yahweh" is, however, commonly known as God, or "the Lord" (unlike, for example, Thor). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you consult the Wikipedia page on "proper noun" you will find that a proper noun is "a noun which represents a unique entity". "The Lord" is therefore a proper noun. You might have assumed that "The Lord" was not a proper noun because it has "the" in it. If so, you were incorrect. I will not charge you anything for this lesson, think of it as a free trial. Zargulon (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

rrr, No Zargulon, because "The Lord" could ref to any deity that any person thought was his lord. So it doesn't ref to a 'unique' entity. Several religons do, and they are each ref'ing to their own deity. This point has been made over and over, and you might have gotten it by now. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

In any case, I don't much care if "The Lord" is or is not a proper noun. My objection to that phrase was that it wasn't specific. Any religion can, any many do, ref to their deity as "the lord". You might have gotten this by a process we call "reading". But thanks for the lesson, and thanks for not charging. Steve kap (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, Steve. Any person who has a friend called "Dave" can and do refer to their friend as "Dave". The fact that there are many different people called "Dave" does not mean that "Dave" is not a proper noun, or should not be used. You might have realized this by a process that we call "thinking". Zargulon (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I guess my suggestion to "read" didn't take. Let me try this:

Good point Zargulon, I guess "The Lord" can be a proper noun! My aren't you smart. Now if you could just find argument to which that point was relevant, you'd really really have something. Now, as it happens, the objections to using "The Lord" was something quite different from that. Most of the other editors got it, by,reading it, and we've come to the conclusion NOT to use the term. Hence the article as it is now. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

I'm glad you raised the fact that every time your current objection is defeated, you recycle a different one which was defeated several weeks before. Most of the other editors don't do that, because of 'thinking'. Now if you could just find an online project where that behaviour was acceptable, you'd really really have something. Zargulon (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear me, can't read AND can't tell time. This copied from ABOVE (that is, earlier): "The idea that "The Lord" means the desert god, Yahweh, betrays some pretty myopic Jewish/Christian centric thinking. "The Lord" means whatever god the speaker thinks is his lord, if he thinks a god is his lord. We aren't writting for Jewish and Christian circles. Steve kap (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)" Steve kap (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve kap, there's no consensus to add this, and you still haven't addressed the issues raised above. Please do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Recycled from before (that is, "earlier"), just as I predicted. I remember thinking how bigoted that comment was when I first saw it all those weeks ago, and I note how comprehensively it was refuted then.. why do you expect it to survive for longer now? Stupidity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome. Zargulon (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The First Revelation

Have any of you noticed that the "First Revelation" section says absolutly nothing about the 10C? That it only ref to the CC? Indead, it doesn't lay any groundword or give any explanation of the term "the first revelation", what it ref to, when it was coined, who uses it , or even that it has anything at all to do with the CC.

And, to pre-empt Jays usual question at this point, I think this state of affairs is BAD, and I suggest that edits be made to make it otherwise.

And, to pre-ment his usual call for a more specific suggestion, I'd tell him that I don't have one, that I didn' write the paragraph, that he is to feel to suggest something, and if he's not satified with that, he can know now that I don't care in the least. Steve kap (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by that too. I thought the 'two revelations' referred to the two revelations of the TC's. Now we list them as the CC and the TC's, which makes three revelations. I relabeled the header to reflect that, but it might be considered OR. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you go along those lines, you'd have to go to 4 revelations, the CC, the small CC, the 1st set of stones, the 2nd set of stones. Then, before that, their is a spoken revelation. So, maybe 5. But, I don't like that idea. I'd rather ref to the "revelations" in ref to their source in the bible, ie 'In Ex 20, the 10C are spoken by God to the People. In Ex XY, they are ref to as being written in stone, although the text isn't explicitly stated. In Ex 34, they are written in stone again, as a replacement, but the text is different.' Something like that. If you want to ref to the CC, in the proper contexts, thats fine to. Thats my suggestion. Steve kap (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bible lists two times in which Moses ascended Mt. Sinai. Those would be the "two relevations". Each ascent lasted many days, and presumably involved multiple communications from God to Moses, which included the communication of the Ten Commandments. That said, I've simply removed the numbers, which should resolve the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the edits Jayjg made are OK. I'd suggest adding the Ex 20, spoken by God to the people. Also suggest adding Book and verse, to help keep things straight, and to give the source. Also, starting off with "The 10C are not the only.." That seems weak. Start with a positive statement, That the 10C where given at X point in the bible, then go on to what else is there.Steve kap (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mythology"

Along came Thaliomiles (talk · contribs) and decided that we should describe the narrative in Exodus as "mythology". This word is not normally applied to the Biblical narrative, and I don't see why we should do so now (and at this particular juncture). This is not even a midrashic or rabbinic source, but the Biblical text itself. JFW | T@lk 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And along came JWD, who thinks civility is a thing to be demanded, but not for him to offer. Mythology is a term normally used to describe exactly this type of belief. Why, I wonder, would you think that beliefs from the bible should be an exception. True, "Mythology" is a loaded term, in this case, loaded with accurate meaning. Look it up. Then tell me how it doesn't fit. Then we can talk. Steve kap (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Where have I been incivil? JFW | T@lk 06:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And along JFW, pretending that starting a converstation this way is perfectly civil. And then along came I, point out that ofcourse its not, as you well know. 130.76.96.151 (talk)

It was not particularly uncivil, especially in light of the many mindless debates that tend to dominate this talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

After a brief search of the internet, I ran across a site called "Wikipedia". You might have heard of it. Here is that it says about myths:

"Nature of Typical characteristics-The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans.[9][10][11] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion.[9] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past." Seems to fit, don't it. Steve kap (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve, I don't think this discussion is served by your interminable sarcasm. Jayjg asked for an actual source. I think there is pretty widespread consensus that "mythology" is not an acceptable term for the Biblical narrative. At any rate, I had hoped Thaliomiles (talk · contribs) would have responded here. Instead I got a message on my talkpage.

You asked for an alternative. The alternative is just leaving out the few words that Thaliomiles added. The text works perfectly well without them. JFW | T@lk 06:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, JFW, no problem at all except it that the wording as is presents a certain groups mythology, in Wikipedia's voice mind you, as fact!! All this you might have decerned by READING the orignal objection. 130.76.96.151 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that not calling it 'myth' is the same as presenting it as fact. Myth is typically used for a canon of stories which are disjoint and don't have a unifying thread. A lot of Greek and pagan certainly fall into this category. The bible by contrast has been predominantly read a single narrative. That in itself doesn't make the bible less ficticious, it just makes it not 'myth'. Likewise large-scale Greek works like the Iliad/Odyssey are not referred to as 'myth'. There is no double standard. Zargulon (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bible can hardly be compared to Homer. The Iliad and Odyssey form coherent narratives, the Bible does not. It's a compilation of various myths, history, and propaganda. There's nothing coherent about it. And 'myth' is not typically used for a canon of stories, disjoint or not. It's used for those stories of gods, heroes, monsters, and the like that resonate in the collective conscience of a culture. The Greek myths still resonate in our culture: they're the basis of much English literature, poetry, film, and theatre. The same is true of biblical myths. The things you get in a children's collection of 'Bible stories' are just as much mythology as Hercules's labors. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are comparing apples with oranges. The things you get in a children's collection of "Stories from the Iliad" are also mythology. It is absurd to say that the Bible in its final state does not form a coherent narrative, whatever its origins or political dimensions. Zargulon (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Greek myths are as coherent as the Bible. Whether the unifying thread is Jehovah or Olympus is not relevant. And now the Iliad is mythology, when a paragraph ago it wasn't. Yes, apples and oranges: it is a double standard. — kwami (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote. Making a 'children's collection' out of any large-scale work, the children's collection can be reasonably described as myth, where the full-scale work isn't. That goes for both the Iliad and the Bible. You compared the full Iliad with a children's anthology of the bible, which is indeed a double standard. Zargulon (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stories such as the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, the Exodus, and the Ten Commandments are clearly mythological. There is, of course, always going to be difficulty separating the mythological from the historical in a book which conflates the two. We do reflect a pervasive bias in only using the term 'myth' for non-Judeo-Christian myths, or perhaps for the myths of extinct religions. (See for example the entry for 'myth, mythology' Soulen (2001) Handbook of biblical criticism.) I guess the question is whether we should follow the WP principal of a World POV, and treat mythology as mythology regardless of who believes in it, or follow the principal of RS's, since Western sources frequently observe this Western/J-C'n bias themselves. I know this has been discussed before, I just forget where. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is possible to distinguish this narrative from academically accepted history without using the controversial term "myth", and have attempted to do so here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is. But we only do that for the Judeo-Christian tradition. With pagan narratives we have no problem using the term 'myth'. That's the bias: the word's not appropriate for my religion, but it's good enough for yours.

There is no objective distinction between the two, apart from who believes in it. From Segal (2004, OUP) Myth: a very short introduction:

"The pervasiveness of classical, or pagan, mythology is even more of a feat than that of biblical mythology, for classical mythology has survived the demise of the religion of which, two thousand years ago, it was originally a part. By contrast, biblical mythology has been sustained by the near-monolithic presence of the religion of which it remains a part."

Since the word's so pervasive, it would IMO not be appropriate to purge it from all of our articles on, say, Greek mythology. But if we use it there, we are being extremely biased in refusing to use it for Jewish and Christian mythology, even if that's a bias shared by numerous encyclopedias. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with your analysis, and can't see any reasonable atheist or relativist disagreeing. However. This, and all articles on mythologies, can be written without employing the term "myth" and still retain their integrity. So, to avoid drama, and unnecessarily offending believers, we should avoid the term. It's not such an issue where the myth has no living believers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The objective distinction with regard to Pagans is that they themselves use the term myth, whereas Jews/Christians do not. It is really not mysterious and far removed from being "extremely biased". Zargulon (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Using groups' preferred terminology for them but not for others is generally biased. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How does this apply? What is biased about using a Pagan-acceptable term for pagans and a J/C-acceptable term for J/C? Zargulon (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the J/C tradition redefines 'myth' to be a negative. The pagan tradition is no longer around to maintain it. We should either use the term 'myth' for myths or we shouldn't, but to call them 'myths' for some traditions and not for others is just as biased as using 'freedom fighter' or 'patriot' for only one side of a war. The reason the J/C tradition does not like the term 'myth' is that they do not like to be seen in the same light as other traditions, which is what an unbiased treatment would demand. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that "the J/C tradition redefines 'myth' to be a negative"? I think you should re-examine this belief, it strikes me as based on prejudice rather than reason. Zargulon (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I support Anthonycole's compromise. From an NPOV standpoint it is reasonable to ensure that this is not presented as undisputed fact. I have however removed the name, as I don't believe there is consensus that His name should be spelt thus. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's largely used only in academia, and probably not widely recognized by the wider public. That's why I prefer 'Jehovah', even if it's now less common in the lit, as it's widely enough recognized to be used for jokes in Monty Python—a joke doesn't work if the audience is unfamiliar with the key word. It also doesn't pretend to be the authentic pronunciation, which was one of your objections to 'Yahweh'. — kwami (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've written before, I don't see how pronunciation is important in a written formant. Such as Wikipedia. 130.76.96.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

My apologies for being unfamiliar with proper Wikipedia protocol, and for showing up uninvited on jfdwolff's talk page. He asked me to tea here, and very politely too. I have nothing to add to the discussion at this point except to join in pointing out the obvious double-standard being applied vis a vis my religion vs. your mythology. I do want to speak to jfdwolff's assertion, though, that the story of Moses' forty days and nights on Mt. Sinai is not midrashic. I'm guessing that the alternate explanation for the number forty showing up here is that it's just a wild coincidence, and has nothing to do with the Israelite's wandering in the desert for forty years. I'm sure that Jesus's forty days' wilderness trial was just a fluke coincidence too, and that the precise number of days he wandered in the desert (that phrase sounds oddly familiar) should be considered historically accurate as well. Bottom line--do you want to put Wikipedia's credibility behind the historicity of one people's legend, especially when it clearly contains symbolic elements? (Forty of them to be exact.)Thaliomiles (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is way off topic. This is the Ten Commandments page. Please review WP:TALK. Zargulon (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The line on Moses' time atop Mt. Sinai being forty days and nights is on the Ten Commandments page, and is--in it's current form--presented as historical fact. This is not off topic.Thaliomiles (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranting about other users and about a conspiracy to suppress symbolism elements is off topic, and that was substantively your contribution. Zargulon (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"conspiracy to suppress symbolism" what? My point was not about other users or conspiracy. My point is that the argument that has been made, i.e. Moses' forty days atop Mt. Sinai as part of the Ten Commandments narrative is NOT midrashic and therefore stands somehow as more legitimately historic, is a false one. You can hardly find a more midrashic element in Hebrew scripture than the number forty, from Noah on forward. That alone makes clear that this line doesn't describe an historical event and that flat assertions like "Moses spent forty days and nights atop Mount Sinai" that don't make clear this is simply part of the story at hand should be avoided.Thaliomiles (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So I take it you are happy with the current version "The Biblical narrative says that Moses spent.." or some such? Zargulon (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The current language for modifying the line in question "The biblical narrative describes..." solves the problem well. This can't be read as Wikipedia standing behind the historicity of the story element. Well done.Thaliomiles (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The number 40 recurs frequently in the Torah and later rabbinic literature (e.g. the number of days before the fetus is fully formed). This is really not the place to discuss the historicity of the Biblical narrative. I support the addition of a fragment to the effect that Moses' 40 days on Mount Sinai are discussed in the Bible. Whether this should be regarded as historical or not can safely be left to the reader. I think this discussion has resulted in consensus. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a consensus has been reached, and I too support the addition of the fragment as described by JFW. But I think it's important not to muddy the take-away here. The issue is not the accuracy of this or that traditional narrative, and that was not meant to be the focus of my contribution to this discussion. My main point has been the danger of presenting as factual here in Wikipedia any traditional narrative for which there is no firm consensus regarding historicity. And biblical stories in the Jewish and Christian traditions as well as stories from the Qur'an, The Book of Mormon, and sacred Buddhist texts surely fit this description--as do many others. This is a legitimate concern and not a debating topic. All statements printed here in Wikipedia, unless otherwise modified, are and should be read as a current consensus on the facts based on the best, most informed research and balanced opinions. If this point represents a meta-issue and is best discussed elsewhere, I apologize for my ignorance.Thaliomiles (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The word to describe such naratives is "mythology". We use it for Greek mythology, Norse mythology, pagan mythology. There is no particular reason that the Jewish/Christian mythology should be handled differently. It may well be that the word offends members of those groups. That should not at all be our consern. Steve kap (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you arguing for the use of a term believers find offensive, when the article can dispense with the term without affecting its veracity? What possible benefit is there to the article or the encyclopedia? All this proposition does is consume time on the talk page and, in the unlikely event that it is successful, offend believers, without adding anything to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying is that we should censor the encyclopedia when the truth is offensive to a relevant group. It does make a difference: we're purposefully obscuring the nature of these narratives. This is like going along with Croatian nationalists and claiming that Croatian is unrelated to Serbian. I for one oppose censorship. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) The current term is more NPOV. This has nothing to do with censorship. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Describing this text as a narrative is just as factual as calling it a myth. Because myth carries pejorative baggage, it's best to avoid it. Equally we don't call homeopathy a joke when we can call it a form of alternative medicine. In each case one alternative is offensive to believers. If it were impossible to do justice to this topic without using myth, I'd be all for it, as you can see in the above discussion around JHWH. I'm sure there are, or will be, articles where myth is the only term that is appropriate to describe these stories. This is not such an article. Mythology of ancient Israel and Judah is waiting for scholarly treatment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as factual, yes, but not nearly as informative. There are many types of narratives, some of which are myths. This one happens to be a myth. To avoid calling it a myth, to avoid offending believers, that’s called censorship. As to your rather obviously spurious analogy, we aren’t calling the Exodus story a joke. We’re proposing to call it a myth. And the Exodus story, true or not ( almost definitely not, ask any archeology that has looked for evidence for it), is most definitely a myth.Steve kap (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion as to the historicity should not be conducted in the opening sentence. We know about your agenda, Steve. JFW | T@lk 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested any such thing. I suggested that the story should be presented as mythology. Which it is. The “discussion as to the historicity..” that came from you. When you argue against ideas that you present as your opponents, that’s called a “straw man argument”. And when you argue against the motives of your opponent, with innuendo, that called an “ad homonym argument”. And when you ref to someone, in the familiar, Dr Wolf, and are unwilling to reciprocate, that’s just plan rude. JFW, you’ve stated plainly that you don’t think that the same rules that apply to others should apply to you. Because ‘you care about the article’. The problem is, nobody else agrees with you. So, when you try these silly little tactics, to get the discussion off the track, know that it will be called out. Every time. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

I have always made it clear that I adhere to a traditionalist POV, and it would be helpful if you were clear that you have an atheist agenda (as multiple edits over the years have amply demonstrated). This would make it easier to achieve some sort of consensus. Accusing me of rudeness is a bit pointless. I will happily call you Steve kap is that is remotely helpful. (And "ad homonym" is giggleworthy, but never mind.)

I also dispute that I was making a strawman argument. See, if you use the word "mythology" then it is pretty much accepted that the story is non-historical. The word "narrative" is more NPOV, because there is a large proportion of the world's population who subscribe to the view that what is narrated here reflects historical fact. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The pointless attempts to insert the word "myth" into the lede are simply more of the same agenda that has been promoted by a specific editor on this article for the past 5 years. Yes, Steve, we understand that you think the Bible is just a bunch of invented tales and myths; now please stop trying to use Wikipedia articles as soapboxes from which you can preach about it. Aggressive proselytizing is no less rude and annoying when it comes from atheists. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I glanced through the earliest archives a few days ago and saw that. I'll read through the archives more carefully before I continue above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If Jayjg thinks this discussion is pointless, I'd invite him to leave to those that do see that point. Steve kap (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Without casting judgement on the actual discussion, I'd appreciate it if editors stopped saying things like "atheist agenda" to describe the motives of others. Besides being outright silly, it's impeding on WP:AGF at best, and bringing up the religious views of others is WP:PA at worst. Please comment on contributions, not contributors. Thank you.

As for the discussion, we should probably use the common term applied within the literature. Do we have quality sources which refer to this as a myth? — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No-one said anything about an "atheist agenda", which is a serious misrepresentation. And you really need to review the Talk: page archives to understand the participants here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg, perhaps you missed it. JFW, on the 25th: "it would be helpful if you were clear that you have an atheist agenda (as multiple edits over the years have amply demonstrated)" On the 24th: "We know about your agenda, Steve." That was followed by your more benign comment on the 26th: "[these] pointless attempts... are simply more of the same agenda that has been promoted by a specific editor." I was actually referring specifically to JFW, and not you, when I asked editors to stop using terms like "atheist agenda" to describe the motives of others. However, if your intention was not to accuse Steve of having an "atheist agenda", then in light of JFW's comments, later commenting that Steve's edits are driven by "an agenda" was poor word choice.

I'm already familiar with the editors involved. I'm simply asking that we not characterize the motives of others as being religiously motivated on this talk page, particularly in such a way. If there's an issue, it should be taken to a user talk page or a noticeboard. (BTW, I'm not saying there isn't an issue; I'm saying this isn't the place to discuss it, particularly when doing so encourages rejecting the comments of an editor due to his religion. If you want to discuss this, you're welcome on my talk page or email.) — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think my response was borne out of frustration with Steve kap's persistent edit- and talk page warring over really very trivial things. For consideration: I didn't say that he had an agenda, but I asked him to concede that he had one. You have had disagreements with this editor before, so I would be grateful if you had other ideas to get him to collaborate more and stop winding up other editors. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right Jess, I didn't recall that JFW had written that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@JFW I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure if I have any specific suggestions. I think it would be easiest if we just stuck to sources (particularly when things get contentious), and that may help to remove some of the unrelated dialogue which seems to be frustrating everyone. I'll participate below and see if I can help. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm looking for a good source but there is indeed a common scholarly separation between parts of the Hebrew Bible considered "historical" and those that are not. Depending on who you are, you would either consider those non-historical, earlier sections "myth" or you would not. For instance, religious studies scholar Gary E. Kessler uses the entire story of Moses as a case study in the chapter of his introductory text, Studying Religion, titled "Myth." On the other hand, even within that perspective the Ten Commandments are not myth, they are an element of a story that many religion scholars would undoubtedly consider mythic. Myths are always narratives and never things. All that said, I agree with Anthony above that there is no reason to use the term myth in this entry, as it adds nothing of value. If there is a notable mythological perspective on the 10 Commandments and someone can do the research to produce it, then I might change my mind.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand JFW. I too have done stupid, thoughtless things out of anger, that I’ve latter regretted. I accept your apology. Now, back to the article. You said that mythology carried some baggage. That may be because the methods of mythology don’t often give us good history. But, regardless, I think we should use the most accurate, meaningful words we can, no? If so, doesn’t the question become ‘is this narrative in fact mythology’. I’ve presented the definition. I think it fits. In what way to you think it doesn’t?

To Griswaldo, my understanding is that the word “mythology” does not preclude something from being historically accurate. It just means the source of the narrative follows that patterns and uses the methods of myth transmission, not history. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure. Steve kap (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of religious people who characterize the stories in their scripture as 'myth' for just that reason. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was an explanation, not an apology; no regret was expressed.

I'd say Anthonycole's argument to avoid the word "myth" carries wide support, and I think further discussion is probably not necessary. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve, in normal parlance it explicitly connotes "wrongly believed to be true." "Narrative" does not carry that collateral connotation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but “mythology” isn’t usually used that way in normal parlance. But I do see your point, and it’s a good one. Maybe if we hyperlinked ‘mythology’ to its Wikipedia page? Then people will know what we mean? Or, there is another way to approach this.. seems like the only objection is the that term “mythology” implies that it never happened. Well, if the consensus amongst archeologist, historians, is that, in fact, the Exudes story never happened, then I assume that would address the objection, no? I am prepared to have that discussion. Steve kap (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No it would not. In scholarship whether or not someone analyzes the Exodus narrative as a "myth" has nothing to do with whether or not the story ever happened. And this entry is not about the Exodus narrative anyway, but about the Ten Commandments specifically. This whole discussion is pointless unless you find quality sources discussing the mythological importance of the Commandments. I'm unaware of such sources. 99% of scholarship on the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with the Moses story as myth. That's why it makes little to no sense to even contemplate using the term here.Griswaldo (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Steve The only objection is not the veracity of the story. The question is whether "myth" even applies to this section. We should be using a term that is common within the literature we're quoting. If our sources don't call this a myth, then neither should we. I don't object to using the term if you can document that it's commonly applied, but to do that you'll have to present sources. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo, true, "myth" does not mean that the story never happened. But some editors objected to the term just the same, because the term is often used to imply that something never happened. I was suggesting that, if infact the thing never happened, that objection woulnd't apply. @Jess, I take your point, if the literiature in general ref to it as a myth, than its a myth. That's question of fact that hasn't been determined, and the positive position (mine) has the burden of proof. So, I withdraw the suggestion for now. Steve kap (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)