Talk:Ten Commandments

Killing and murder

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

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

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

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

Refing Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Religious neutrality inaccurately equated with athiesm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dulia

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

Dulia is honor given to Saints not to God. See [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhdr (talk • contribs)

Discovery on Lieing

You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Lev 19:11) See [2] -leviticus

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

Get your facts right

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

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

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

As most do?

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

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

Some clarification?

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

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

Revised 10 commandments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest can continue as it is presently written.

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

Sabbath day

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

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

An Alternative Version

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

Perhaps you missed the second paragraph of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord's Name In Vain

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish List: 1 or 2?

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

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

Biblical Narative/The Stone/RD

Folks, we seem to have gone full circle here:

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

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

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

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

the second cammandment

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