Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sabbath day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Alternative Version

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

Perhaps you missed the second paragraph of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord's Name In Vain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish List: 1 or 2?

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

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

Biblical Narative/The Stone/RD

Folks, we seem to have gone full circle here:

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

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

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

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

I made a couple edits, the previous had the 10C as a result of "an agreement" on a mountan top. No sources were given, and I'm not familiar with such a tradition. Also clarified what was according to text, what was according to tradition re the Stones. Reworded to make clear that the article is a statemenet of tradition, not history or fact. Note that I did NOT contend that the tradtion was false, I avoided the word "Myth", which could aply, but might be seen as loaded. If others want to make the case that these traditions are history or fact, they have the burden of establishing credablity, (citiations, NPOV, majority, notable) on them, I believe. If someone more familiar than me wants to add what Douteronemy adds, have at it.

Steve kap (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a small correction to your changes. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is Deuteronomy = "second" + "law" (because Moses repeats many of the previously outlined laws in it). Debresser (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had in mind that it was "tradition" not "biblical narative" because its not unambiguously the ED (vs the RD) that this ref to. But, that contravercy is mentioned in the previous paragraph, and, as written, it could ref to either. So, I guess its fine with me. I'd wish the confusion between the RD and ED would be MORE part of the article, but the seperation of the 2 (on wiki) is a result of an old, contentious debate here. Cheers Steve kap (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Richardshurs, I see you undid my edits. Rather than get in a revert tit-for tat, why don't we hash this out on the discussion page. Can you provide a source for or support any of the following, which you added:

1) The 10C represent an AGREEMENT 2) That the stone, prior to carving, were in the arch, in the Eygptian Manner" 3) The idea that the 10C were written in stone to refect the unchanging manner of law (in fact, even with a source, I'd argrue that this is POV, interpretation, and not about the narative).

Also, logicly and stylisticly, I don't think it make sence to present (without source, mind you), that the 10C were written on stone and say, as if in contrast, "There are also Biblical passages that ref to the (10C) written in stone".

Can you explain how leaving out the 1st ref to the 10C, that is EX 20, where they are spoken by God to the people, HELPS the article?

Also, I'd like you to adress the idea that such traditions shouldn't be written as if they are fact or a matter of conventional history.

I put comments here at the time of my edit to avoid a tit-for tat, it would have been helpful if you read them. But perhaps you didn't see them. Steve kap (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a second reading, I noticed that your summary stated 'perphaps this needs to be recasted in terms of tradition rather than history, but....' and yet your edits SPECIFICLY removed any words that did just that (cast the texts in terms of tradition)!!!! Can you explain? At this point, I'm going to revert, I think you need to support the statements before you add them (or re-add them), and the citations should be in the article itself, and they need to be NPOV, and they need to fit the heading they come under. Thats the standard, I believe. Steve kap (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Second Commandment

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

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

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

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

11th and 12th commandments

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

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

Corrections on the Islam section

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

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

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

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

Year given to Moses

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

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

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

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

weight

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

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

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

Add another resource?

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

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

Order of Religions Not Fair

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

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

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

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

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

Murder?

The text on christian 10-cmds said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Killing or murder?

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

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

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

You say:

The differences in translation have had theological consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

What can we do with these sources?

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

and especially

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

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

Public Display controversy and numbering

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

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

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

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

You are correct. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical narrative

User:Steve kap deleted the following text:

According to Biblical text, the commandments represent the covenants agreed to on Mount Horeb. The description of the tablets in the story says they were carved in stone housed in an ark, and the ark placed in a sanctuary in the Egyptian manner. This creation of a written Mosaic law and the idea that it should be held sacred and sovereign over all the commandments of other gods led to the idea of an inflexible law carved in stone; this was later modified by the selection of judges who could interpret any ambiguities.

I restored it and Steve deleted it again. What exactly is the problem here?

I admit that I am not very knowledgeable in this area but my understanding is that the Biblical text does support the notion that the commandments were "carved in stone" and "housed in an ark" which was "placed in the Holy of Holies". Now, I'm not sure about the "in the Egyptian manner" bit. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how much support there is for this.

Next step: "This creation of a written Mosaic law and the idea that it should be held sacred and sovereign over all the commandments of other gods led to the idea of an inflexible law carved in stone". Eh, this seems to be reaching a bit and is arguably OR. I would like to see some sourcing for this. Also the assertion that "this was later modified by the selection of judges who could interpret any ambiguities" is also arguably OR. I was taught that the Hebrews clamored for a king and God gave them judges instead.

Thus, I recognize that there are problems with the text but I'm not convinced that it should all be tossed even if it does sound like it was written by a middle school student.

The operative guideline here is: WP:SOFIXIT.

--Richard (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is original research here, and details that are non-essential to an article about the commandments, not the stones. I prefer the version of User:Steve kap (with the correction I proposed and has been accepted by him). Debresser (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin

JFDwolff, I noticed that you reverted my edits under "Popular Culture". I, added a ref to George Carlin. The late Carlin is quite notable in popular culture, and his commentary on war, religion, politics are part of the American zietgist. You can read about him in the Wikipedia article about him. His bit about the 10 C is well known, as can be seen from the number of views of the youtube clip I mentioned. Its also mentioned in the article (there is a ref to the 10C bit on that page, but don't seem to know how to copy it, add to the 10C ref, could anyone help?). So, I argue that its noteable, its part of popular culture, and its about the 10 commandments. As you wrote no comments when you reverted, I don't know what your reasons for reverting are. But, let me know here, and we can work it out. (ps, let us not have that Jeff/Steve thing again, its getting a bit old).

Steve kap (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JFW revert. The 10 commandments have had a great influence on western culture. George Carlin is not one of the major influences no matter how well known it is. Jon513 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the revert, for the same reason. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address your objections, but I'd like to understand them a bit better first. It sounds to me like your saying that the George Carlin bit shouldn't be ref in "Popular Culture", because Geroge Carlin was never as influential as The Ten Commandments. Surely thats not it, is it? Help me understand. Steve kap (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by that argument the entire section should be deleted. Mel Brooks is not a major influence on Western culture either. kwami (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And, by that logic, the Cole Porter song "Mona Lisa" couldn't be listed under pop culture ref of the painting "Mona Lisa", because the painting is more infulenctial than the song. Clearly this isn't the rule. Or a rule. But maybe Jon513 had something else in mind. I'd also like to point to the phrase "...no matter how well known it is"... well, when it comes to popularity, it certianly DOES matter how well know it is. That what the word means. But lets let Jon513 and others have another go at it. My point is that the bit is popular, its culture, its noteable, its interesting, and its about the 10C. Do you take issue with any of these points? Do you stipulate to these points, but have some other reason, that's applied generally (no special pleeding), that it should NOT be included? Steve kap (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin in known in America; The ten commandments has influence the whole world (or at least western culture). The scope of influence of Ten Commandments is very large both geographically and temporally. The popular culture reference should reflect the wide range of this influence, not just cultural reference of America in last 15 years. (I also think that many of those that are there should be removed). Jon513 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So, an entry in the "Cultural References" section needs to have the same scope, both geographically and temporally, as the Ten Commandments themselves? Is that the standard now? Is there a current entry in this section that would stand up to that test? Where did this rule come from?

But, perhaps you meant that the entries IN TOTAL should reflect a vast scope of time and geography. Well, we've got entries from 1819, 1923, 1957, 1981, 1988, 2007, (and 2001, if I get my druthers). Hardly just "from the last 15 years", as you state. Well, what about geography then. I count 1 from Poland, 1 from England, and 4 (5) from the United States. Not suprising, seeing as much of the worlds film industry is based in the United States. Not bad for diversity. And if you have a cultural ref that's noteable from another country, please, add it!! Steve kap (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to have one paragraph about movies, and one about parodies. I don't think it is reasonable to have a paragraph on every movie or parodies or anything that happens to mention the ten commandments. Jon513 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I see!! Its not about what is as influencial as the 10 Commandments, or what has the global or temporal scope of the 10 Commandments after all! The real issue is if the cultural artifact can be put in a pharagraph about "movies", or in a paragraph called "parodies". And since Carlins act is comedy, but not parody, well, sorry, it just doesn't happen to fit it.. darn the luck. hmmm, don't know were that rule came from, sounds like special pleeding to me.

But, your second point, well taken. And that's where I wished we could have started. Deciding what should be in or out. I think wiki is rather clear on this, the yardstick is what is noteable, and what is germane to the subject. As to noteable, I'd say the 14 HBO specials, his TV series, his awards, the number of albums sold, and the number of hits on his YouTube clip (his 10C bit), I'd say thats some bona fides for noteable. Certainly more than other ref's that WERE included. Is it relevant? Well, the track (from the album of the act) was called "the ten commandments", it goes on for quite some time (much longer than Mel Brooke's bit in his movie). He talks about the polical and social implications of the 10C, so, yes, I'd say its quite relevant. Steve kap (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid sarcasm, it come off as mean spirited. Remember we are all trying to work together for a better article.

I have rewritten much of the section - what do you think of it? Jon513 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It has all the ref's, and its more consice. Steve kap (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Honor your father and your mother

An article has been created on one of the commandments. There is a discussion on the talk page as to its validity which I invite interested parties to input their views. SGGH ^ping! 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

wrong statement?

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns

i dont remember the alien resident in your town —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakota1431 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is there. Jon513 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark the hands, or cut off the hands?

All the translations say the punishment for theft is to cut off the hands of the perpetrator. Is Wikipedia Bowdlerizing the Holy Quran? - 93.173.65.204 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Steve kap (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ten commandments

how do I learn about the ten commandments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.148.238 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick fix please - "Division of the Commandments" link

{{editsemiprotected}}

The "Division of the Commandments" link under the "Text of the Ten Commandments" section does not correctly link to "Division of the commandments as listed in Exodus 20" below. Would somebody with sufficient editing privileges kindly fix this. Feldhaus (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you!-- fetchcomms☛ 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NRSV translation bias

The NRSV translation does not reflect the traditional Jewish understanding of the Hebrew text, a glaring example being the statement that god punishes children for parents' sins, which is not the way Judaism understands the original Hebrew paqad avon (literally "overseeing wickedness/iniquity". Although I don't know much about Christian interpretations of this verse I suspect that most churches also reject the NRSV's interpretation. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

there are actually 11 commandments, the 11th is " thou shalt do the dance ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.77.186 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Versions of Catholicism

"There are many different denominations of Protestantism" true but there are many versions of Catholicism. There are Greek Catholics (not Greek Orthodox) and Old Catholics to name but two variations.

92.251.185.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Image added

I do not see the reason for adding the "up-to-scale 3D" image, especially as tradition has them as cubes, readable from all sides, not thin tablets. -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This image represents the best possible aprroximation of the Stone Tablets, based on the entire description from the Pentateuch, as well as logical and scientific realities. And even though it is true that the Rabbinic tradition has a different view on the matter, I think it would only be fair to present all other possible and plausible opinions as well.

Out of respect to this article, I'm going to give you time to respond before I revert back your change.

I would not mind discussing an apropriate label for the picture though. Aleksig6 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the image is, at best, a representation of a possibility and neither a historically accurate depiction (we have no images from 3000+ years ago) nor a canonic historic representation, I see no reason for it to be in the article, which is why I removed it. -- Avi (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't mind if I will help you to remove all other images from the article ?!? They are even less historically accurate and most definitely improbable depictions of the Ten Commandments.... ;)
FYI: Do not remove my image again, as it is highly accurate representation of the Tablets, that is in-line with Jewish tradition and the original description in Pentateuch. It also clearly shows the entire text in Hebrew: other images do not reflect that.Aleksig6 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The other images are canonic historical images, not modern creations, AND it is not in line with Jewish tradition as it is on a thin sheet of black and not a cube of sapphire. The image is not appropriate, as wikipedia is not free webhost for your art. There are plenty of other places for that. -- Avi (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My image was more or less precise (yes, precise...) reconstruction of the Two Stone Tables with the Ten Commandments upon them, as it is described in Pentateuch. It has nothing to do with Jewish tradition, Talmud or anything like that. The original description in Pentateuch does not mention any "saphire cubes" or any other things that you have mentioned...
In fact, I do not understand why all explicit parts of the description of the Tablets from Pentateuch have been underrepresented in this article! Care to explain ?!? Aleksig6 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Aleksig6 adding personally interpretive images to various Jewish articles -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with your image, for example, is the font. The tablets were wither written in Ksav Ivri (which was the secular alphabet) or Ksav Ashuri ([The Talmud's ruling] the "holy" alphabet which was eventually used for all Sifrei Torah). The font you used didn't exist for millenia afterwards. We already have a "canonic", although incorrect, depiction on the page, why should we have a non-canonic incorrect image that is your interpretation? -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are making yet another biased claim: Rabbinic Judaism, even though it is a widespread denomination of the Jews, does not and cannot possibly claim an ultimate authority in such matters.
Although if the "font" in my image is the only thing that is bothering you, I absolutely do not mind changing it(provided, that you send me a public domain font file that I can use to improve my image).
The only reason I published these images on Wikipedia was to try to entice an interest to study Pentateuch in people, who might be reading this article. Unlike yourself, I do not consider myself a "know-entire-Torah" guy.

P.S. What does this image doing in this article ??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg ??? Christianity and the New Testament have nothing to do with The Ten Commandments! At least not by your logic... Aleksig6 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the article section and caption; that is in the Christian section regarding Jesus and Christianity's relation to the Ten Commandments. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a pointless discussion Avi, and I do not intend to continue it as I have stated on the Talk page. One thing I want to note though: this article does not have any images with the entire decalogue in hebrew(the first image is just a partial text). I think you should add it, especially considering that you do have images with complete decalogue in other languages. Aleksig6 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thou Shalt Not Steal and Kidnapping

{{editsemiprotected}} The reason that Jewish sources (as sited by Rashi) understand "Thou Shalt not Steal" as refering to kidnapping is twofold. First, we have other verses in Torah that tell us not to steal (Leviticus 19:11), and given the Jewish understanding the Torah does not repeat itself, this verse must therefore refer to something else. Further, this verse is in the context of other verses punishable by a death penalty -- "Do not murder" and "Do not commit adultery." Thus from context we learn that this verse must also refer to a mitzvah that incurs a death penalty, hence kidnapping, not murder. Source: Rashi on Exodus 23:11 (this verse)

The above edit should be added to teh "Thou Shalt Not Steal" section in response to the last sentence: You shall not steal Significant voices of academic theologians (such as German Old Testament scholar A. Alt: Das Verbot des Diebstahls im Dekalog (1953)) suggest that commandment "you shall not steal" was originally intended against stealing people—against abductions and slavery, in agreement with the Jewish interpretation of the statement as "you shall not kidnap" (e.g. as stated by Rashi).

Question: Welcome and thanks for contributing. Could you provide a more complete citation of the source so that someone may verify that the source presents these two arguments for that interpretation of the 6th commandment? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to provide some basic info on this subject: The root גנב , and the 8th commandment of the decalogue לא תגנב , in Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses) has a broad meaning of "not stealing", and primarily refers to an act of stealing itself, rather than any particular form\act of "stealing". In cases where this root refers to kidnapping, an appropriate prefix or a noun is added, or, in some cases, the root itself is repeated.
For example, Deut 24:7 - גנב נפש (steal a soul) or Lev 19:11, where past tense suffix is addded to the root (תגנבו). Or in Gen 40:15 the combination of a root and the word is used ( גנבת גנב ). Traditional commentaries(Rashi on Ex 20:15 and others) make a claim that that word in decalogue refers to kidnapping under the pretense that kidnapping is punishable by death(i.e Deut 24:7), and stealing is not, therefore it must be kidnapping. However, that is a rather strange statement as stealing of a property(even intent to steal) is punishable by death in some cases (Ex 22:2)...Aleksig6 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, Alek. Exodus 22:1–22:3 refers to self-defense, and that killing someone who is breaking and entering is not considered murder but self-defense. There never is capital punishment for theft of material property; only for kidnapping. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would ever read an actual text and not the commentaries, you would know that in a particular case of Exodus 22:2 the capital punishment can be inflicted upon a thief, even though it is not encouraged. And what is most interesting, it is one of the few laws that actually gives such power to every single person, and not just the court(judges). The fact that it is not considered murder, does not change the possibility of a capital punishment for the crime.
On the other hand, the following verse, Exodus 22:3, explicitly forbids capital punishment for the thief if a crime is commited during the day.
Not to mention, that you have completely disregarded the fact that Exodus 22:1-3 talks about the property theft, and not about a particluar form of theft that kidnapping is.
Kidnapping is discussed explicitly in other verses, i.e. Deut 24:7 Aleksig6 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alek, please leave your original research out of it. I have those texts memorized in the original biblical Hebrew, I KNOW what they are saying (אם במחתרת...) No-one explains those verses to be discussing capital punishment for theft but self-defense regarding home invasion at night. Kidnapping is the focus of the sixth commandment (Thou shall not steal) as per the Talmud (Sanhedrin 86a). Do you have any reliable source that backs up your original research interpretation? I have thousands of years of texts. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen Avi, if you choose to embrace and follow Rabbinic form of Judaism (Orthodox Judaism) that is your personal business. But please do not try to present your beliefs as an ultimate truth, and make it look like all religious and observant Jews believe the same.
Not to mention that you are terribly mistaken, as even the simplest comparative and linguistic analysis of the original text would confirm my proper understanding of the text to any person who has even a bit of common sense.
Learn to use your own brain, instead of trying to quote from and hide behind Talmud. Aleksig6 (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alek, denial is not going to get you anywhere. Look at the verses: Exodus 22:1–22:3. The original Hebrew makes no mention of capital punishment, any English translation does not mention capital punishment, it is solely your original interpretation, which besides being flawed, is original research and inadmissible. Please review wikipedia policies, Alek, especially WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; wikipedia is not the platform for disseminating your original approach to biblical textual analysis; there are plenty of free or for-pay websites that can help you. Blogspot may be a good place to start; you can post your novel ideas and personal artistic interpretations to your heart's content. -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL! But seriously, Avi, I propose to end this discussion.
Nothing would make me happier to get you to understand why I explain these verses they way I do (same goes for my images, btw), but I really don't feel comfortable to do so right now and right here - on Wikipedia. I'm very sorry that I my contributions cannot be of of any help here...Aleksig6 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the text accordingly. -- Avi (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why all the passion? Surely all we need to say is that the "kidnapping" interpretation occurs in the Talmud, some scholars agree and some don't. And that is all the article does say. But Avi is quite right to point out that a right to kill in self-defence or in defence of property is not the same as a death penalty, and any lawyer will tell you the same: it's not a question of adherence to any religion. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Talmudic source and I know of no Judaic scholar who disagrees with that. Remember, this section is the Classical Jewish interpretations section, and, ergo must reflect the classical Jewish interpretation, which has always been kidnapping. -- Avi (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Judaism Wiki: I can clearly see that now, and I'm not going to get in the way. It was not my intention to do so to begin with (just so you know). Aleksig6 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thou shall not circumcise.", the abolition of circumcision by the Second Commandment

According to the Orthodox interpretation, the Second Commandment condemns common criminality, which the Sixth already does. Another interpretation, suggested by Sigismond, is summarised in a 01.15.08 e-letter to the Editor of the British medical journal http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183746 (towards the bottom of the page). 01.31.08, it has been published in extenso in American internet press http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december022009/circum_h.php. 09.04.08, it was given as a lecture at the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC, organized in the University of Keele (RU) with NORM-UK and the university school of law http://nocirc.org/symposia/tenth/symposium08.pdf.

This page is here to discuss the article "Ten Commandments", not the subject of the article. Give the link to the circumcision article by all means, but don't set it out in extenso here. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

- Agreed! However, I cannot transfer this piece into the locked main article, where it belongs, as it is done in our Italian, Portuguse and Spanish pages. Could you please do it for me. I've been trying to put the references as footnotes using the symbols but they do not work here in the discussion. Sigismond (talk)

I don't know why you are unable to edit the article. If you are blocked for some reason, that is something for you to take up with the Wikipedia administrators. I don't think it's right to ask another editor to do it for you.

If you do add the reference, I would recommend a neutral form such as "Another interpretation of the Second Commandment has been suggested by [person] in [journal] [footnote with links]. On this view, the reference to "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children" should be translated as "punishing the sins of the fathers against the children", and was intended as a prohibition of circumcision." It'll probably be deleted by someone else as not notable or not mainstream! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

- Thank you for your advice, it's been followed. Actually, when I arrive upon the main page, there is a logo of locking: a padlock, and there are no "[edit]" signs at all. Therefore, editing is impossible since I do not know how to contact the administrators. I thought you were one of them.

- Now, I'm using the rabbinical translation that does not speak of "sins" but of "crimes", which is rather different. I'll definitely keep "crimes". Second, I'll use "prosecute", which is the Orthodox rabbinical translation. In order to well show where the difference is, I shall not introduce other differences. Third, the comparison of interpretation is between: "... who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children" (my respectful of the Biblical text interpretation) and "... who prosecute children for the crimes of fathers" (the Orthodox, and false, interpretation). Hoping you well understand me. Cordially yours, Newsigmund (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. This is the author of the opinion piece in the Salem-News trying to get his opinion in wikipedia; this seems to violate WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, etc. and is not allowed. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigismond, it's quite clear that this is your own unique theory, which you've managed get placed on a couple of websites. It's not acceptable for Wikipedia, however; please review WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Point about "sins" and "crimes" understood. But since "sins" is the conventional translation, why not roll both points into one by saying "the reference to "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children" should be translated as "punishing the crimes of the fathers against the children""?

This point is answered in my published paper that explicitly refers to the official French Rabbinate translation (Paris: Editions Colbo). Sigismond (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you in fact the author of the articles in question? If so, you should wait till your interpretation gets a bit more (verifiable) support, so as to be a notable phenomenon for WP purposes. I'm terribly sympathetic to original research when well founded, but it appears to be against the rules of the game. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

- First, my discovery has been accepted by the Editor of the British Medical Journal who seems a quite reliable reference.

- Second, it was the object of a public lecture organized by the School of Law of a reknown English University, which is quite a reference too.

- Third, it is published in extenso by an American internet daily

- The whole article also remained in this very wikipedia discussion page for two years without the slightest problem.

- It is daily published in my nouvelobs.com "Droit au corps" (Right to the body) blog (around 3500-4000 monthly visits) without any serious criticism (Le Nouvel Observateur is a very famous French weekly).

- It is therefore no longer my own unique point since long. Your criticism seems exagerate. Are you an Orthodox Jew?

- The demonstration of the falsification of the 2nd Commandment has now been published for two years without any objection from Jewish Orthodox authorities. Only an American Academic researcher published, within one month of its publication in Salem-News, a rather fantasiatic theory affirming that, in the desert, the Jews would have practiced hard drugs, which tended to ridicule their writings of the epoch (the Books of the Exodus, Deuteronomy... etc)!

- Consequently, my discovery is a must for wikipedia's front page. After several criticisms like yours and discussions between wikipedia administrators about "the rule of the game", it now figures in the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian front pages.

- About the discussion between sin and crime, the Orthodox Jewish translation must be respected. Anyway, translating by "punishing the crimes of the fathers" when all my point is saying that there precisely lies the falsification, shows that either you're pulling my leg or did not read well my paper. Newsigmund (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you managed to get your theory uploaded to a blog and to an on-line letter to the editor means very little. The fact that this was done "for two years without any objection from Jewish Orthodox authorities" means even less, since "Jewish Orthodox authorities" neither know nor care about your theory. Again, please review WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

- Please avoid bad faith: first, I'm not mentionning my own blog in the five (once the references are put into the bottom line) lines I propose for the main page; I only mentionned it to say that it is very popular. Second, the Editor of the British Medical Journal only accepts serious contributions. Third, the Great Rabbi of France received my "theory" without attacking me for slandering; he will have to care about it one day because the French Jews will require the respect of the Second Commandment. In the United states, Reform Jews will be happy to have a strong argument against circumcision that they stopped practicing. At last, I went and see your links. The British Medical Journal, the School of Law of Keele University and Salem-News are "high quality and reliable sources". You are the first person affirming that my plain litterary analysis, not theory, would be a fringe one when it is mere logical analysis. Anyone can criticize it but no one ever does since it's absolutely logical. Your opinion is the fringe one. Newsigmund (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Having something published on a website does not make it notable, and it certainly is WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE; this does not belong on wikipedia. There are plenty of other free webhosts which may be used to propagate any theory you desire. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

- This is again merely mean statement of the obvious; don't forget the "Thou shall not kill.", dear Avraham. Sigismond (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be very clear. The sources you have brought consist of:

a) an editorial you got published on the www.salem-news.com website. Keep in mind, this is not the website of The Salem News, which is actually at www.salemnews.com, but merely a website that appears to be copying the name of The Salem News.

b) an online response you made to an article on the "Rapid Response" bulletin board of the British Medical Journal.

c) a description of your theory you managed to get included in an anti-circumcision conference discussion

You are a "researcher in psychoanalysis". You are not a biblical expert. This material violates WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Repeating yourself won't change that fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

- The same to you. Sigismond (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are about three or four internet news sites more or less called Salem News. No one may say which copies which's title.

To sum up. It's an interesting theory. The fact that it was published on the salem.whatever website, was given space in the BMJ and lectured on at Keele shows that these people believed that it was an interesting theory that deserved an airing. However, there is still no evidence that more than one person in the world (and still less, any expert on Biblical studies) actually believes it to be true. Accordingly it is not notable within WP rules.

I'm not being hostile. Carry on with your campaign by all means, and get a following if you can. If it reaches critical mass, it will then be notable and can be included. Maybe the way forward is to put a brief mention of it in some article such as "Circumcision#Criticisms", and simply cross-refer from this article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would be WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE anywhere on wikipedia right now. It needs to be referenced by a few reputable organizations; right now it is one layman's thesis -- classic UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Sigismond, you're pushing original research. It's not "his opinion" that this is fringe, it could be a poster child of fringe. What you want here is just not going to happen. Attacking others isn't going to help. If you want to get this on Wikipedia, you'll have to publish somewhere. And I don't mean a blog: a real publication that is respected in the field. Then we can cover it as legitimate scholarship. Or, if you get it on the six-o'clock news, we might cover it as a fringe idea that's gotten public attention, like the Birthers, but that doesn't mean it will be accorded any respect. Or, if some government picks up on the idea for its social policy, say as an attempt to eradicate infibulation, we can cover it as social/medical interest. So get published, then come back. kwami (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And Sigismond, don't insert your editorial comments in the middle of other people's comments again, as you did here and here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All this is unaccurate reproach: in accordance to wikipedia policies, I'm giving links to five serious and reliable sources; if the BMJ, the School of Law of Keele University, Salem-News, NOCIRC and NORM-UK are not serious, who is? Sigismond (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Violating NPOV in one project is no excuse for violating NPOV in another project. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what NPOV means is but you do not seem entitled to affirm that the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese teams of administrators would violate whatever wikipedia rule, which seems due to the well-known typical circumcised and American overbearing attitude.

It's also very relevant in this discussion that my so-called exegesis is not exegesis at all but mere logical analysis. Therefore, we cannot appeal to Biblical experts in this debate. On the contrary, since they more or less belong to the religious world that is mingled with sometimes blind belief, their objectivity must be suspected. In matter of (very elementary) logic, the team of Editors of the British Medical Journal, the board of administrators of the School of Law of the University of Keele, the editorial team of Salem-News and the boards of directors of NORM-UK and NOCIRC are unquestionable. Sigismond (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC). This is why I insist to be allowed to publish the short lines on top of this debate into the main article.

"NPOV" stands for "neutral point of view". Though sometimes it's used as if the N stood for "non-". Let context disambiguate.

By your argument we might state that there is no evidence that the people/deities mentioned in the TC ever existed. That is clearly not what we're doing here. Logic has little place in religion, and we do not hold religious beliefs to such a standard.

If there is a significant legal or medical movement to understand the commandment in this way, then that would be appropriate for the modern interpretation of the TC. But for what the TC "mean", we generally mean "what they mean in religion X", and your sources are irrelevant for that. kwami (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your first statement is far from my argument; indeed I do grant a historical value to the Bible, arguable in several cases but not this one.

Therefore my pure logical and grammatical (the debate between plural and singular) analysis, which is accepted by various types of minds (my numerous references), cannot be rebuked by encyclopedical minds that should remain neutral in the matter, free to religious minds to come and express themselves in the discussion. Sigismond (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Sigismond; this is original research and WP:SYNTH on your part, and cannot be hosted on wikipedia. Getting it printed in a website that mirrors op-ed pieces from some magazine does not make it notable. You must review what is appropriate for wikipedia (WP:V) and what is not (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, etc.). This is one person's (your) hypothesis and is neither appropriate nor acceptable for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sigismond, you've hit it on the head: "free to religious minds to come and express themselves in the discussion". Your logic starts from a false premise, that this is a discussion. It's not. It's not a blog for the millions of people who have idiosyncratic views of the TC to post their POV. It's an encyclopedia: we merely summarize the lit. Your idea is not in the lit. Therefore it does not belong here. QED. kwami (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the few lines on top belong to the main article and you may not discuss them. Leave it to Biblical experts in Biblical discussions. Sigismond (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. Leave it to Biblical experts, not "researchers in psychoanalysis". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly not discuss the obvious with Biblical experts, neither shall they. However, it so happens that I'm the Biblical expert about this precise point. Whatever it may be, these lines do not belong here but to the main article. Since it is now widely published, it is no longer original research and must be quoted in the encyclopedia Sigismond (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Bible clearly states that the Ten Commandment tablets were simply replaced when first broken. The Ritual laws or "Mosaic" laws were written onto a scroll, not tablets, and kept next to the Ark of the Covenant, not in it. That is the reason for the abolition of the rituals when Christ died, with the maintaning of God's moral law intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.174.240 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigismond, please stop trying to post your original thesis on wikipedia; further violations of wikipedia policies may be met with measures taken to protect the integrity of the project. -- Avi (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi, since I've stopped posting in the main page article long ago, please stop trying to suggest that my "discovery" - it is no longer a research - wouldn't have been approved by authorities much higher than you.

For all those unaware, my very best argument in this debate is the following: the paedo-criminality of sexual mutilation must be fought by all means, including a slight lack of respect of WIKIPEDIA rules. Sigismond (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously very passionate about this argument. I invite you to pursue it in an appropriate form, one in which you CAN show respect for the rules and policies. Steve kap (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC

Actually, I use to be fond of respecting the rules. Here, we are in the presence of obsessive and overstrict application of them, orchestrated by political (Zionist) views against which I'm afraid I CANNOT do anything, unless you give me some other way...? Sigismond (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is clear, your personal antisemitic attacks notwithstanding (equation Zionism with Judaism). Please stop trolling, further disruption may be treated as disruptiv editing and appropriate measures taken. On your own website you may do what you wish, but wikipedia is not he place for your theories. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're now libelling right away an anti-neo-nazis who is prosecuted in Paris by one of them (http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/File:The_AME_neo-nazis.pdf), moreover a son of "Justs" ("Justs" are those who risked their lives during the Nazi occupation in order to save Jews). Your political opinions that amalgamate anticircumcision and antiJudaism or antiZionism have nothing to do here and YOU should be fired from here. Sigismond (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous. There's no need for personal attacks, neither claims of bias for an idea not being accepted, nor accusations of bias because of them. That said, your contribution Sigismond is clearly OR and doesn't even belong on this talk page, let alone in the article. WP isn't a place to convince the world of the truth, only a place to record what the world believes to be the truth. Your essay has been kept here by the archiving bot only because you continue to add to it, but it really is time for it to be archived. kwami (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You say so. Sigismond (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Material worth including

The removed material below was initially added to the lead as there seemed no other relevant sections. As the material is totally relevant and helps place the subject in the context of history, I think it belongs with this article. Any other suggestions on placement or inclusion? See also Moses as symbol in American history.

"Numerous scholars have noted that the Ten Commandments also represent the foundation for democracy and an important influence on America's history. Theologian William Barclay says they are "the universal foundation of all things . . . the basic laws of human conduct in society, . . ." He adds, "From Israel we Christian peoples inherit that wise and holy code of laws. Our society is founded upon it." Author Richard Swift's No-nonsense Guide to Democracy states that the Ten Commandments represented the earliest form of law and democracy and historian Israel Gerber writes that "Pursuant to the acceptance of the Ten Commandments, all subsequent legislation of a democratic nature develops this principle." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

These people would seem to have little idea of what they're talking about, or at least are pushing a very biased POV. Democracy spread largely despite the TC, not because of them. They had nothing to do with with the establishment of democracy anywhere that I know of. Moses as a symbol for a leader to liberation is not in itself democratic either; religious symbolism is used for any attempt at change, but that hardly establishes causation. Anyway, the TCs are just Babylonian law reworked to demand exclusive worship of one jealous god. At the very least, we need s.t. on how this has been received. kwami (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here are a few more references on the topic of the TC and democracy. Feel free to add any cites you think would help the subject along with any others you might have. How many more quotes or cites should we add to remove the tag? There are many others that haven't been cited to keep the topic manageable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are?

I don't mean to add more refs for the same POV, but the other side to balance the section. This is a bit like claiming that religion started charitable hospitals, and providing lots of cites, but failing to note that the churches had opposed such things as interfering with God's will until they were established and started making the churches look uncharitable. The American revolution, for example, took its cues from the Enlightenment and Athens, not from the TC; from reading this, you'd think the opposite. kwami (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice other similarly troubling pseudo-historical claims in that other article, which you wrote. "Moses was the first to proclaim the rights of man"? Are you serious? Mosaic morality comes from Babylon, as any basic history of the world will tell you. Yes, Moses is a powerful figure when striving for one's own freedom (i.e. in the Civil Rights movement in the US, or the Puritans before that), but says nothing about giving others freedom (note again the Puritans), which is the essence of democracy. For that, we need to look to Greece. I'm not one to claim that Greece was the foundation of civilization or any of that nonsense, but Greek politics was the sine qua non of the rise of modern democracy, whereas Mosaic law was largely irrelevant. kwami (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The brief paragraph only states that "numerous scholars have noted . . . " the relationship, and their sources are given with quotes. It is obviously only their opinion about the link, and it's stated as such. The article is only about the TC, not democracy or other side relationships, such as the American revolution. It seems that adding these kinds of opinions about the TC and its possible influences is reasonable and valuable. As for other available citations, there are some, for example, that discuss major legal cases, including the Supreme Court, dealing with the display of the TC in public places, schools, etc. One of the reasons the Supreme Court still has Moses and the TC in its chambers is because they have recognized that they may have been in some way an important source of democracy. But the paragraph added to this article is short, so I'm not sure we should add those kinds of issues here.

Everything you're commenting about has been stated by others, not me. I don't do OR. The other article is not super long but still has 50 cites, and most all of them from serious scholarly references. In any case, it seems that anytime scholars cite biblical material and its relationship to modern times, it's assumed by most to be their opinion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Supplying one side of an argument is not acceptable, and the length of the section is not an excuse. If the section is not relevant enough to this article to be balanced, as you seem to be arguing, then it should simply be deleted, even without OR. Yes, the 10 C's do have obvious cultural value in the US, and are even symbolic of law in general. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they were a foundation of US democracy. The article you're summarizing contains some obvious BS; of course it's all s.o.'s opinion, but so is everything we find it print. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE still hold. kwami (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you see this paragraph as needing opposing views, since you call it an "argument," then go ahead and add whatever material you think will help. You have made no attempt to add anything to the section, yet have already added two tags. Your only "dispute" so far is that you don't think scholars have a right to give their opinions on a topic with which you seem to disagree. However, what you personally disagree with is irrelevant. You need to provide verifiable opposing citations and add them as you see fit. Without doing so, tagging articles is in effect graffiti, and that is also not acceptable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If you treat it like a blog, your work will be deleted. Please read WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. (Or just read the section above on the 'trimillennial falsification'.) kwami (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could qualify the pharagraph with "Although there is no general agreement, and very few legal scholors agree, and its hardly worth mentioning, but, numurous RELIGOUS scholor feel that....". And we could follow it with some talk comparing it to earlier, vastly superior written codes.

But on the whole, I agree with Kawmi. If you want to advance this view, wright a book or start a blog. I'm deleting it. Steve kap (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note: The Ten Commandments themselves have very little to do with democratic governance; they are basic social guidelines of the 'don't steal your neighbor's chicken/wife/money/life' variety. Mosaic law more broadly put (of which the TC is only a small part) is a more egalitarian/democratic system of law, as it is concerned with equity and collective decision-making. is that what you you're reaching for? --Ludwigs2 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a Request for Comments on the discussion page of Moses as symbol in American history. A number of editors wish to have the article deleted, so any comments might be helpful.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Bible itself assigns.."

"While the Bible itself assigns the count of "10", using the Hebrew phrase aseret had'varim ('the 10 words', 'statements' or 'things'), this phrase does not appear in Exodus 20."

Huh? the Bible itself assigns it but it doesn't appear in Exodus 20? Then where does it appear? Sneeper (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ex. 34, the "Ritual Decalogue". kwami (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Make Sense?

Does the following sentence underneath the idoltry section make sense or am i misunderstanding it.

Christianity holds that the essential element of the commandment not to make "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" is "and bow down and worship it". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblical comments

Various comments of the Ten Commandments appear in the "Exterior links" of the article. There is no reason why a very seriously referenced link (Salem-News, an e-letter accepted by the Editor of the British medical journal, and a lecture in the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC in the University of Keele School of Law) should not appear in the "Exterior links". It is high time that dogmatic and political issues should not be accepted in the Ten Commandments article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigismond (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press. The same standards apply as they do for any other article. If you don't like it, go to WP:dispute, but read also WP:COI. Meanwhile, continued posting here is a waste of time. kwami (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that this link is completely unsuitable as it reflects the personal opinion of a single person. Sigismond, you have a conflict of interest by inserting this link as you wrote the material yourself. You have previously been extremely difficult in discussions about this same theory, and you risk being stopped from editing Wikipedia if you continue despite repeated warnings from numerous experienced and impartial editors. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but this article has been published for more than two years in the press. It is therefore in the public realm and no longer a private veenture, as you wrongly pretend. It is an article just as other exterior links but it is seriously referenced by undoubtable authorities, which you are incompetent to contest. Foremost, it is only an exterior link, not part of the article. Sigismond (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

US Politics section

Apparently, the discussion about the Utah cases may be misleading, as I've seen information on the ACLJ's site that they got this overturned by the Supreme Court. I am not competent to re-write that "Public blah blah in the US" section, which I agree is sore need of being either removed or re-written because it reads like an editorial. But I just wanted to mention the issue for discussion since I found it to be somewhat misinformative. I'm not much of a wikipedia editor, so sorry if I'm breaking protocol here. See [1] for details. --(Keith.blackwell (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

The Ten Commandments in the Koran

The Decalogue is not referenced explicitly in the Koran, if I am not mistaken. Islamic morality does descend from the tradition of the Ten Commandments in certain ways, but I am not sure if I would say that they are the religion's moral foundation. We may want to revise the article to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You shall not kill / murder

The current quote from Exodus states "(often misquoted as 'You shall not kill')" and a foot note says that "kill" is the proper Roman Catholic translation. Isn't saying they are misquoting the 10 Commandments being a wee bit judgemental of Catholics? Sorry if this has been argued before. Flabreque (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In the *** footnote for the comparison of comandments between religions it states that kill is "less specific and more inclusive" yet the cited authority, the Catechism, states that "intentional killing" is a mortal sin. The citation directly conflicts with the footnote author's opinion because intentional killings do not include reckless or negligent ones. According to the Catholic church, "kill" is not to be read as all encompassing as the author of this footnote suggests.

There are two definitions of murder in the dictionary, "the killing of another with malice aforethought or premeditation" and "the intentional killing of another." These are based on the older definition of murder under the English common law, and more modern revisions such as that under the Model Penal Code. Under English law, murder includes the mental state of an intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm. In US jurisdicitons, 3rd degree murder includes negligent or reckless homicide but excludes intentional killings. In still other US jurisdictions, the term manslaughter replaces 3rd degree murder.

It is pretty clear what the Catholic meaning of the commandment is from the Catechism, but I can't tell what this "murder" reading is supposed to mean. Does it include 3rd degree murder, negligent killings with no intention on the part of the actor, or does it only cover premedited or intentional murder? If the reading of murder applies to only those killing which are intentional or premeditated, then there is no need for these weasel words in comparing the two different translations when the meaning is the same. If the term murder also includes negligent homicide, then the opinion of the Catholic "kill" needs to be reversed. This reading of murder would be "less specific and more inclusive" than the Catholic term "kill." 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dulia

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

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

Vandalism

This page has been heavily vandalized. Where it states the text of the Ten Commandments in the different books, you will find jealous God, resident alien, etc. It's a shame. 98.180.50.81 (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if the whole New Revised Standard Version had been 'vandalised'. AFAIK there's 'stranger within thy gates' in the King James Version in stead of 'alien resident in your towns' but the 'Jealous God' is the Biblic fact we must bear with. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Typo

1. Keep one's promises: ...fulfil (every) engagement [i.e. promise/covenant], for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (17:34)

Should be: fulfill. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing block?

Why am I unable to edit this page? I'm not under any kind of block, and I'm a registered user. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is full-protected a cause of the edit war (above is the discussion), if you want to edit something, use the {{editprotected}} template instead. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How can this block be removed? Wasn't consensus reached through a vote? If not, how can this vote be scheduled so it is binding regarding the content of the introduction? Sorry but I just write articles and edit, don't know the finer point of Wikipedia law. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No vote is ever binding. In fact, votes are only polls - if twenty people voted for us to make a change that violated Wikipedia policy, someone would revert it pretty soon. In fact, most articles begin life relatively unstable, because few editors take interest and each editor can exert a large influence. Ideally, as the number of Wikipedians grow (and one hopes there is a corresponding growth in the number of Wikipedians who are knowledgable about orthodox and critical scholarship on the Bible), editors should work together to reach consensus on whatever they can conceive of as the best form the article can take. Ideally, the more people - with the proviso that they are knowledgable or willing to do research - participate in discussions, the more likely that the emerging consensus will actually be close to a great article. So the article should become more stable. A new editor can come and propose a major change but if the current version is the result of a strong consensus, it will be hard for one person to change it, unless he or she has great arguments. Right now, only one editor supports identifying the Exodus 34 Covenant Code as another ten commandments. I'd say we have a very stable version of the article. But what if in five years the number of Wikipedians quadruples? What if we get thirty new editors who are all experts on this material? A new consensus can always emerge. But if the people watching this article now are fairly knowledgable and continue to watch it, what is more likely is that over the next several years, individual editors will make incremental improvements people watching the article will agree with. Of course, there are usual lags because new Wikipedians who are experts on the bible may not know that this article even exists until there is some kind of edit conflict! Anyway, the quality of our articles always depends on editors who are committed to core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, as well as WP:NOT), who discuss changes on talk pages thoughtfully. But consensus can change any time enough people have participated in a seious discussion (normally I would say ten people in ten days is plenty). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But the fact remains that there's one single person who is opposing every other editor on this subject. Shouldn't that be sufficient to demonstrate a consensus? If not, what would constitute a consensus? Surely there must be some mechanism by which the block can be ended. Do we have to request it somewhere? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein .. thank you for that concise explanation. I know there are hundreds of pages of these rules and acronym definitions, but I always get bored reading the legalese and i have a backlog of 10 new articles I've been researching for way too long. Appreciate it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall not steal section

{{editprotected}} I would like to change the following text (additions in bold, deletions struck out) to bring it into accord with the earlier section:

Significant voices of academic theologians (such as German Old Testament scholar A. Alt: Das Verbot des Diebstahls im Dekalog (1953)) suggest that commandment "you shall not steal" was originally intended against stealing people—against abductions and slavery, in agreement with the Talmudic Jewish interpretation of the statement as "you shall not kidnap" (Sanhedrin 86a e.g. as stated by Rashi).

Anyone disagree? -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. By the way, I think page protection is about to expire. My suggestion is wait a day to see if anyone has any objections and if not, go ahead and make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to kidnapping and enslavement being under the overall 'umbrella' labeled as Theft. I believe theft as we know it today was also included under this general label. Some of the commandments are (for lack of a better word) 'common-sense' such as 'Dont Murder', which are required for any society to be stable. If a simple concept as Dont Murder is included, logic dictates so would Don't Take What Is Not Yours. It would be surprising that taking people without their permission was singled out without including a prohibition against taking anything without their owner's permission. I have not studied this enough to offer more than an opinion. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

The page is no longer protected. in the meantime a strong consensus has emerged that this article is about the ten commandments, and not Goethe's interpretation of genesis which seems not to have gained much traction with historians and other scholars.

I did a little reorganization and rewrite. My goal is to make four distinctions clear; I think some of the protracted conflict on the talk page owed to muddling these distinctions:

• the distinction between the two stone tablets (ten commanments) and the book of the covenant, both of which God revealed to Moses at Sinai
• the distinction between the first revelation (20-24) and the second (34)
• the distinction between the first recitation, in Exodus, and the second recitation, in Deuteronomy, and
• the distinction between Jewish and Christian &c. ways of dividing up the commandments.

I have refered to critical views where appropriate. The article still has a section on the "ritual decalogue". I continue to have the same questions and objections to this section as i have expressed above. I do not think anyone has done sufficient research to be able to provide a coherent and accurate account of major views held by higher critics. This is a shame because we ought to have a clear presentation of these views, with accurate attribution. I am not opposed to a short sentence summing it up but it probably merits its own article and that is where the real work needs to be done. But we need much better research on this before we can really talk about it in the article and make any sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my 5 cents... First lets come up with structure. I am looking for referenced material from Sages and non-Sages. Lets leave this RD alone for now since its such a hot potato. When everything else is in great shape we can revisit RD. For the record, I agree with you regarding a very short sentence summing up RD put between Mel Gibson's interpretation and Woody Allen's analysis. (joke). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the four distinctions above easily lead one to a sensible structure for the beginning of the article, and that is all I have edited (the distinctions move from general to specific and also pretty much follow the order of the biblical narrative). I have not done anything to the RD section. I agree that we need to do some real research on RD before messing with that section, regardless of how deficient it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

work needed

I've read the article over for the first time today, and here are my thoughts.

The ritual decalogue article has three contemporary sources referring to the RD as a "version" of the Ten Commandments. That tells me that there's a place for the RD on this page. Since the RD isn't the "Ten Commandments" as the term is commonly used, we shouldn't give that version of the TC equal standing. That said, the RD section in this article should be a good enough summary that the reader doesn't have to navigate away to another article to read what it's about. (The RD still deserves its own article, naturally.) Maybe everyone will be happy when this article has a fair treatment of a relevant topic (the RD), but this information is segregated into its own section.

The Islam section could probably be reduced to a small section. The current version is undue weight: too much content devoted to too minor a point. The RD is way more relevant to the TC than the Islam content is.

The lead is pretty bad, with unnecessary details about terms but no summary of the topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic, and this lead doesn't come close to telling the read what the ten commandments are or why anyone cares.

There's no straightforward statement of what historical-critical scholars say about the Ten Commandments: when was it written, where, by whom, why, when edited, by whom, why, etc. Lots of religion-themes articles have this problem. This one relates what the Bible says and what various religious groups say but doesn't tell the reader what modern historians know about the history of the TC.

Hard-working editors might be able to find useful information here or here or here. Leadwind (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have some notable books on the topic. Drawing on them I developed a section on different critical views of the chapters in question. I think one of the best sources is the Anchor Bible, the commentary on Exodus is by Propp and Deuteronomy 5, by Moshe Weinfeld. I have already put a lot of time into this but I am certain both these books will have a wealth of clear and reliable information and have good summaries of different views. Can someone find them at their library, and draw on them?

I am concerned about the organization now. I think it is important to keep the distinction between critical and religious interpretations clear. Right now the critical interpretations are before the comparsion of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and the religious interpretations are after. I am not sure what makes most sense, and welcome discussion, but if someone thinks it is an obvious improvement to move what I recently wrote so that it follows the side-by-side of Exodus and Deuteronomy, I don't mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and unprotection

I was asked by Slrubenstein to review the need for ongoing protection. Now as the instigator of the debate about the RD I am not qualified to remove the protection, but I have the feeling that we still need to form consensus about some issues. I think Kwami is the only editor who wants Ex 34 displayed alongside Ex 20 and Deut 5 in the "Text" section. I hope Kwami will acknowledge that there is a lot of opposition that clearly establishes a new consensus.

The other issue is whether we need to discuss the RD in the intro. I was previously not opposed to this, but Slrubenstein has advanced some strong arguments that the RD really does not rate very high in academic circles. Now Kwami seems opposed to complete removal from the intro, and suggests a hatnote instead. I think neither are necessary, and we should keep the RD where it belongs: in the section by that name and its appropriate subarticle. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami is certainly not the only editor that feels this way. I stand with him, on the argument that he brings forth. And surely, as a matter of procedure, the article should stay as the stable version UNTILL THERE IS A CONCENSIS.

While we are at it, JDwolff, so there is no missunderstanding, lets look at your history on the RD: First you argued that the RD had no place on THIS page. Then when a page was created JUST FOR the RD, you recommended that it be "stripped down to the bare bone",, then merged BACK TO THIS SAME ARTICLE! Where, if history is any guide, you'd want it stripped again. THIS NEEDS EXPLAINING! Now you want any mention of the RD,(and, from what I can see, any scholorly thought), stripped again. Another purge. What is it about these particular lines of the bible that offends you so? Steve kap (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: I am strongly opposed to a hatnote, because i believe each article should be about one thing, period. I have no objection to a section informing readers that there is debate among historians as to the authorship of the different versions of the Ten Commandments, and the date when they were written, and the relationship between the text in question and its narrative context (i.e. the so-called covenant code) with a link to another article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong agree. Consensus is clearly to limit RD to that one section and the link to its own article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong agree. Remove RD. If not limit it to where it is, and even cut it down. 'Ýou shall not steal' is much smaller than RD section, which in my view should be the other way around. Meishern (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that there is a consensus to remove the RD from both the intro and from display in the main text. At most, a small section at the end may be appropriate, if that itself is not a violation of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. If it is, it should be removed completely. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, per my many previous comments on this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even Bible annotations make this dab. This article claims to be about the Ten Commandments/Decalogue. Ex34 is called the Ten Commandments/Decalogue. Therefore we should at least inform our readers that if they're looking for the Ex34 mention of "Ten Commandments", it's covered at different article.

• Agree. Keep mention of the RD and all links to it in one dedicated section of this article. Then, if we want a table comparing the different decalogues, that can go either in the RD article or even in a special article of its own ("Comparison between Biblical decalogues"). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I feel that the views of scholars that have been cited should be given at least equal weight to those of persistent non-scholars. Steve kap (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Myles, do you consider 'Decalogue' to be the same thing as 'Ten Commandments'? Some have argued above that these are not the same thing. If not, if the RD is a Decalogue but not the TCs, should we even have the word 'Decalogue' in the lede? Having it would mean covering all variants of the Decalogue, not just those called the TCs. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The RD is not a Decalogue in the sense used in this article. It is a theorized Decalogue. There's a difference. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it theorized - it is controversial and fringe. Controversial: none of the sources kwame provides agree as to which verses comprise this "ritual decalogue." Fringe: the most notable and significant Bible scholars (Wellhausen, Kaufmann, Noth, Alter) call these verses the "covenant code" because they recapitulate Exodus 21-23; they do not call it the "ritual ten commandments." Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. There's a controversial fringe theory calling this a Decalogue. Having the article talk about it as though it is a Decalogue would be completely inappropriate. Even the section about it is on the long side. I think a line and a link would be sufficient. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "RD" refer to? Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RD section in the "Controversies" section

I see that the RD section is in the "Controversies" section, but no one has demonstrated that there's anything controversial about it. The text of the section doesn't say anything about a controversy. I could expand the section, but I don't know what's controversial about the topic. Probably it should go into a new "historical views" section. That where we can discuss very basic information, such as who wrote the ten commandments and when. Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

True, Leadwind, that's because this section was resently gutted. It used to have text with, explaining what the contraverly is. First the meat is stripped, then the bones. Steve kap (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to me righting the wrong that Leadwind pointed out, by putting the supporting text BACK in pharagraph that he notedd? Steve kap (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, many people object, since the consensus here is not to include the text, per the discussions above. There's no "wrong" to "right" here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I must have misunderstood. The only objection that I have read about the "controverly" section was from Leadwind, saying that no controversy was presented. I volenteered to fix this issue by re-pasting the texted that presented the controversy, texts that had rescently been deleted. What is your objection to that? Btw, when this pharagraph was added several years ago. It was finally settled with a consensus to keep, with JDwolf re-writting most of it. So the texted deleted mostly came from him. More importantly, it represented a consensus. Was there a similair debate to delete said text? And again, whats the objection to add it back in, and fix the weakness that Leadwind noted?Steve kap (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make disingenuous comments, it wastes everyone's time. There's been considerable opposition to the inclusion, so please stop pretending otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

rrrr, As I wrote above, the only objection I read about the "RD" pharagraph in the "controveries" section was that the controveries wasn't presented. For the 2nd time, is this not the case? If there is an objection to explaining the nature of a CONTROVERY in a section labeled CONTROVERY, I'd whish you'd tell me what it is. I can't put it more plainly. A please, Jayjg, no more whining. Its a waste of everyones time. Steve kap (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it then, Jayjg, as you have voiced no objection, that you have none? If otherswise, for the 3d time, please do tell me what it is? You see, I'm told that we are discuss things before we make a change. Or, at least some of us must, haven quite figured that one out yet, though I have asked... Steve kap (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review my previous comments. There's no consensus for including this material. It was deleted because people objected to it. Pretending otherwise is disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, think I know exactly what objection that you are ref to. But, you see, I've clearly anwered that objection (please review the talk page and its archive). If, by any chance, you and I are thinking of a different objection,for the 5th time now, kindly TELL ME WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS!!!Steve kap (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article currently has a perfectly reasonable amount of material on the RD theory in it. Constantly repeating yourself is not the same as answering an objection, nor does that constant repetition mean people suddenly agree with you. Please also read Slrubenstein's comment of 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC) below. Leadwind merely proposed moving the section; he/she didn't suggest you should add any material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, your objection is that there is a reasonable amount of materail on the RD, now I know, was that so hard? Could you not have come right out with it? Now, as for your representation of Leadwinds objection, what he said was "the text of the section doesn't say anything about a controvery".. quite different than what you represent (notice how I don't say that you delibritly misrepresented that, I would be so uncivil as to call you a liar, unlike some). But, leadwind can speak for himself. As to your objection, well, it should be PAINFULLY clear at this point that people don't agree about the RD, if it should be called the 10C or a version of the 10C, right? So, if people don't agree (and we've had experts and lay people cited, lets not kid ourselves), thats generlly called a "contravery" right? And if we are going to mention that controvery (as we have done), should we explain it a bit, so people know whats going on? What people on either side think and why? Would this address Leadwind comment ".. the text of the setion doesn't say anthing about a controvercy"? Steve kap (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My objection was always explicit and clear; please stop pretending otherwise. Regarding Leadwind, again, please read Slrubenstein's comment of 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC) below, which responds to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can both agree that its clear now. Now that you've stated it. And I responded to your objection, so now,,, you're turn. Steve kap (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesn't mean others must continually respond. Please review the previous responses, and let us know if you come up with any new points. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think any fair reader of the above would observe that the only time I repeated myself was to ask you to please, please, please state what your position is.

So, getting back to the discussion at hand, I think I've reponded to your insight full "We've covered the RD enough" with reasons why I think it needs to be covered a tad more, at least in the controvery section. To keep me from repeating myself further, kindly raise your gaze 4 post above, and read what my arguments were and are. Now, as I'm forced to repeat: now it is your turn. Steve kap (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review my previous response, and the many other objections on this Talk: page. Do you have a new argument to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Steve Kap continues to ignore my comment to him made here two days ago! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

rrr Slrubensten, if you'll notice my last post was 27 July. And this one is 28 July, sooo, so much for your math skills. In fact sometimes I go days without posting, as it happens there are other things in life that I enjoy, but I enjoy this as well Steve kap (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you have nothing more to add, if you stand on what you've already written, that's fine, thats your right. To other editors that whish to engage, maybe come to a consensis, you can read above, but, long story short: Jayjg defends the cutting of most of the texts in the "Controveries/RD" section, because 'we already have enough matterial on the RD' (correct me if I'm wrong Jayjg). I contend that we've clearly shown that there is a contravery, and, if we are to mention it, as we do, we'd better explain what it is. I'd also mention that there already was a long debate about this, between me and JWolf, and Jwolf ended up (quite kindly, really) rewritting the section and adding it back in. So, what do others think? Do people think this is NOT a contravery? Do peole think it IS a contravery, but somehow shouldn't be explained? Steve kap (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still have not responded to my July 25 reply to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a little hard to demonstrate that there is a lot of controversy over the idea of a "ritual decalogue" because none of the major sources of the Higher Criticism mention it. It seems to be a kind of footnote in the history of modern Biblical scholarships, an idea of Goethe's that was resurrected temporarily by Wellhausen and was debated quite a bit in the 1920s and by the 1930s was rejected. Wellhausen's major work does not mention it, nor does Kaufmann's, or Noth's, or major textbooks on Old tstament studies (from the modern critical perspective). I have provided a well-sourced account of what higher critics DO have to say about the ten commandments, and they just do not bring up RD at all. (What Goethe called the "Ritual Decalogue" most scholars today call "the small covenant code" or something like that; they see it as an alternate version of Exodus 21-23 i.e. written by a different author or incorporated into the larger text at a different time)

I have asked kwame to clear this up for me and he has refused. What he has is a list of hits from google scholar mentioning "ritual decalogue." But we have no idea whether one of these (or all of these) hits are saying that the author rejects the hypothesis about a ritual decalogue, or whether one of these hits is from the 1900 - anyone who has studied critical scholarship on the bible know that while Wellhausen was a scholar of immense importance, a great deal of the specifics of what he and other scholars working at the same time argued have been refuted by modern Bible scholars. There is a great deal of comparative material from Ebla and other Uggaritic and Akkadian sources, advances in philology, and archeology, that were just unavailable to Wellhausen and others. So it is essential to know when a particular hypothesis was first claimed, and whether scholars today continue to accept it. Kwame could easily answer my questions IF he read the books he is referring to. But he is just relying on Google Scholar snippets, that give little or no context. Kwame could easly answer my questions if he went to a library and took out the books, and also if he looked for the most recent books published by university presses on OT critical scholarship. But he refuses to do this. He admonishes me for holding this article to a higher standard than we hold other Wikipedia articles. Really?

I have gone to a library and I have read the books - I started with the index and the table of contents and then just spent hours going through the books. The results of my research, properly cited, are in the article.

kwame bitches that his own views are not in the article but that is because he has yet to answer our most basic questions about his claims.

As for Leadwind - well, leadwind is not actually agreeing with kwame, he is not insisting that it be mentioned in the introduction or that the so-called RD be quoted in full. Leadwind simply asked why it is in the controversies rather than history section. No one answered him on this talk page; instead we answered him in the article, by improving the history section to provide a solid and well-referenced account of what critical scholars think. Since they do not mention any ritual decalogue, the only place to leave the link is in the controversies section. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)