Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 5

message: Why is there no Orthodox subsection under 'Christian understanding'? I find it quite odd that a very large Christian Church has been left out of this discussion. Giuseppe86 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a good source, and add it in! Nobody has said that Wikipedia is perfect. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Church 

message: The page is getting its daily vandalism, well-intended but poorly performed "corrections" (usually wrong) and anonymous POV pushers. I've protected it for two weeks now. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected 

message: The table seems to have the Catholic version of commandments 9 and 10 wrong.  According to the Vatican,  these are "9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.  10. You shall not covet 
your neighbor's goods."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.82.97 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very well, but it inverses the flow of the Biblical text. Do you have any other sources, given that the website may be erroneous for some reason or another? If this is indeed the Vatican's order, we may need a to add footnote explaining this. JFW | T@lk 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the 10 are identified differently by religion and hence the article should reflect each religion's view. One could argue that any indentification of a specific 10 from the text is a feature not of the Bible itself but of commentators and interpreters. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division of the Ten Commandments by religion/denomination 

message: The table at the beginning, showing the verses in two books where the commandments appear, does not seem to make sense at the moment. The verse numbers in the top row don't match those below, and all the verses appear in the left column, with none in the right. Thou shalt not allow messed up Wikipedia tables to exist for very long. Lou Sander 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with the table 

message: I removed the sections regarding how the LDS and JW organizations view the Ten Commandments - in addition to the feeling that the views of two small groups who have had little to no historical influence on widespread cultural attitudes, or the laws and policies of nations in regards to ethics stemming from the Decalogue - as Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism have over several centuries - have no place in an article about it, the LDS section in particular ended with veiled proselytizing. The information in those two sections belongs in the more specific articles regarding the individual Mormon and Jehova's Wittness faiths, not in an article discussing the origin and historical significance of the Ten Commandments. If this article were allowed to list the individual takes of every religious denomination on all ten or so commandments, it would become bloated with extraneous information, especially when the various demoninations' interpretations do not differ significantly enough from each other to warrant individual mention. Again, specific information of this nature belongs with articles having to do with the denominations in question.  NotPotable (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thanks for pointing this out. I too agree that we should limit ourselves to the larger streams of thought. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If LDS had a distinctive interpretation (and it was reliably sourced) it would be a different matter. However, the content in question seemed to be very generic and didn't seem to suggest a view of the 10 commandments different from what a sermon on the subject in other denominations might contain. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS and JW views on the Decalogue 

message: How is it that an article titled "The TEN Commandments" contains lists of rules that far exceed this number? Just sayin'.Ifnkovhg 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you are "Just sayin'" I would recommend "Just sayin'" on a forum better suited to general discussion - talk pages are to improve the article.  If you want an answer, read the third paragraph of the introduction.  If you think that the third paragraph is unclear, or does not address you question you can suggest a better way to write the article. Jon513 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  I think if someone has an idea, even if its not completly researched, even if he's not ready to make an edit, he should feel free to express it.  I might lead to a useful edit, or to a better understanding.  I don't like comments that shut people out.  Steve kap (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a math question... 

message: I would like to suggest revision for the item no 7 of Ten Commandments according to Islam.
The translation of the Quran Chapter 17 Verse 32 should be:
"And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily it is a great sin and an evil way."
The word "unlawful sex" in the verse does not refer only to adultery, but it also include fornication. Unlawful sex is not only prohibited for married people (adultery) but also for unmarried people (fornication). I think this is also in agreement with other religions. This is need to be emphasized as the current society tends to become more and more permisive regarding this issue, whereas the Words of God is consistent and never change. Diesel09 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW | T@lk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam, point 7 (Quran 17:32) 

message: I'm getting tired of having to scroll through several pages to get to the bottom, so I'm starting a new section.  
Let's take a step back.  This article is the "Ten Commandments".  That is the verses in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 that are universally called the Ten Commandments; the ones that are debated about being placed in public school; the ones that are talked about as the fundamental of morality.  It is not about the list in Exodus 34.  The article is not about the use of the words "עשרת הדברות" in the Bible; it is about a particular Bible list that is called The Ten Commandments.
:This is an important point, except that I would go further.  This article is not about a particular Bible list.  This is article about a cultural artifact known as "the Ten Commandments" that is strongly influenced by the Bible.  Sections of the Bible have been translated, moved around, edited, cropped, etc., and then declared "The Ten Commandments".  I think that many people think of the 10C as something where you just open the Bible up and there they are.  That's just not the case.  The cultural concept of "The Ten Commandments" is significantly extra-bibical.  Haven't you ever seen that Late Show bit where Letternman takes someone's words and edits them to say something different from what they actually said?  You can't just say "well, I've quoted the Bible, so it's a legitimate representation of the Bible."
You feel that this statement is not sourced.  Yet I am sure you agree that the number "Ten" in the title "The TEN Commandments" comes from the Hebrew phrase "aseret had'varim" even if you personally think that this was a mistake. 
:Actually, I remain unconvinced of this.  I have seen no convincing evidence that the Bible using the word "ten" and people referring to the "ten" commandments are causally connected.  I certainly am willing to accede that this may say more about my knowledge of Bible research rather than about the 10C.
I do not think there is a better way of telling the reader that the etymology of the title "The Ten Commandments" for the list in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 is from the Hebrew "aseret had'varim". 
:So there are two problems immediately apparent here.  First, you have no cite for the claim that this is the etymology.  Secondly, even if it were the etymology, that would be an issue completely separate from whether the Bible actually says that.  After all, the etymology of the term "Uncle Tom" goes back to a book by Stowe, even though the Uncle Tom character is not in fact an "Uncle Tom".
:Any reasonable person reading the text as it now is would conclude that the Bible, in the Ex 20 and De 5 passages, uses the term "עשרת הדברות".  I don't see why you insist on retaining this misrepresentation.
:This is a notable issue because, as you mentioned, the Ten Commandments are widely represented as being fundamental to Western Civilization.  Besides the numerous other problems with that claim, the fact that much of the importance given to "The" Ten Commandments is extrabiblical opposes that view.Heqwm (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: both the britannica article and the Jewish encyclopedia article state in their first sentence that the source of title "the ten commandments" is from the biblical עשרת הדברים. Jon513 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten commandments, part 2 

message: It is now widely accepted by modern evangelical Christian scholars such as D Maxwell and Graeme Goldsworthy that the correct translation of the 3rd Commandment should be more like:
"You shall not bear the name of the LORD falsely"
This meaning shows a much larger commandment than the translation "misuse" or "use .. in vain", and is widely accepted by scholars.
The meaning, then, is that God's people are those upon whom God's name rests; his reputation (i.e. name) is linked with theirs so strongly that they must model his holy character by their lives.  Thus the commandment is a prohibition against havign his name on you and yet living a life that brings his name into disgrace.  The Hebrew verb nasa is the usual word for 'to bear' or 'to carry'.  It is nothing to do with speaking.
For further reading, see 'Prayer and the Knowledge of God' by G. Goldsworthy, IVP, 2003.
I believe that the 'Typical Interpretation' section should include a short summary of this meaning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwlegg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd/3rd Commandment 

message: The majority of Christians keep Sunday as a day of worship and rest, every week commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week on the Jewish calendar. Most Christian traditions teach that there is an analogy between the obligation of the Christian day of worship and the Sabbath-day ordinance, but that they are not literally identical—for a believer in Christ the Sabbath ordinance has not so much been removed as superseded, because God's very work of creation has been superseded by a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), but this belief cannot be directly substantiated by Scripture.
While you could make an argument that this belief is not spelt-out word-for-word in the Christian Scriptures, it is most definitely not inconsistent with those Scriptures to not honour the Sabbath day as the Jews do, as the bolded words currently imply (see Romans 14:5 in the context of Romans 14).  Due to the biased POV that the words currently connote, I argue that these need to be deleted.  Therefore, as this article is semi-protected, I ask someone who isn't a new user like myself to fix the page by deleting the offensive phrase (in bold above). --Kozuki7 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize the argument for that particular Christian view not being directly substantiated by scripture, and I can understand why one would want to include this.  However, it doesn't seem necessary to include it, and as this is a touchy phrase (I also was suprised to see it), I have to agree with Kozuki, and I think Kevin is off a bit in using the historical research of Bacchiocchi to demonstrate what scriptures do or do not "directly substantiate." Mitchell Powell (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick change required to Controversies: Sabbath Day 

message: When i read the article of the 10 commandments, I was quite shocked and find it very offensive that in this article, which is meant to be Judeo-Christian, has an Islamic version of the 10 commandments. I as a Christian, stand up to my beliefs and say this is mocking Judaism and Christianity. Why is there an article of Islam mixed with an article of the ten commandments? The article Ten Commandments even has a Judaism info box, mixed with an Islam info box. There should at least be a Islam portal, just as Christianity has a Christianity portal because it is related to Judaism. I, representing Christians and Jews, say this should be fixed right away. It should not be taken "Freedom of Religion", this is very offensive to my beliefs, and my rights of freedom of religion.  —Preceding JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7 comment added by JonasanRat7 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. JonasanRat -- As a fellow Christian, I agree that the ten commandments are primarily a Judeo-Christian tradition.  However, the Islamic section, which is only a fraction of the article, is pointing to a similar set of commandments within the Islamic tradition, which is at least in part derived from the Christian tradition.  So, far from being a mockery of Christianity, it is a testament to the enduring power of the ten commandments that a religion which considers Christianity to be corrupted would still for the most part hold to the substance of the decalogue.  The Islamic info box is not "mixed with" a Judaism info box;  it simply contains a link to Judaism in recognition of the commonalities of the two faiths.  You do not represent Christians and Jews.  You represent yourself.  I represent myself.  But don't presume on your own to speak for Christianity, let alone for Judaism.  And even if Wikipedia were to mock Christianity, this would by no means be a violation of your freedom of religion.  Your own teacher, Jesus, said that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."  Your freedom, JonasanRat, depends on your own knowledge of truth, not on whether some website looks the way you want it.  Now, if the Satanic ten commandments were added, however, then you might have some good reason to complain about being mocked. Mitchell Powell (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism mixed with Islam? 

message: This article contains quite a few refs that direct to other articles on Wikipedia. This is pretty much not right. This problem had been discussed in other articles as well, and the conclusion was to not use Wikipedia (or any other Wiki) as a source of references for articles in Wikipedia. This article needs to be fixed, regarding this matter. diego_pmc (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is just that the footnote you removed is not complete. It is actually a reference of the commentary by Rashi on this verse. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clarified the references to prevent confusion.  Jon513 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refing Wikipedia 

message: This is a casual drive-by comment.  I skimmed this article for the first time, just now, and one thing jumped out at me as a bit strange:
"Rather than enforcing any religious belief, or irreligion, some tend to merely feel that the state ought to be neutral on the subject of religion, and allow people to find their own faith, rather than have the state appear to endorse any particular beliefs. However, dispute continues over whether atheism is really a neutral alternative due to the fact that some feel it too falls under the dictionary definition of a religion."
The separation of church and state and respecting various religious traditions is inaccurately and bizarrely being called 'athiesm' here, which is obviously incorrect.  So that final sentence is completely out of place.  I can only assume that sentence is an artifact of an emotionally charged revision history?  Since this article is locked against casual editing, I'll make that comment here, and someone who's been more involved can act as appropriate.
Cheers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.197.101 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious neutrality inaccurately equated with athiesm 

message: You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Lev 19:11) See 
-leviticus
:And therefore? JFW | T@lk 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery on Lieing 

message: In atheist Soviet Union the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism had many notions much resembling the Ten Commandments.
Uh, the Soviets weren't atheist, and even if they were their atheism doesn't have anything to do with the Ten Commandments. POV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.222.226 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree.  A simalar claim is made at Moral Code of the Builder of Communism but no source is given.  Without attributing the this to a person who makes this comparision it sound like or to me.  Jon513 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get your facts right 

message: In the controversies section that discusses the teaching of the ten commandments at schools I'd submit that the bracketed addition in the sentence "if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew (as most do)," are pretty clearly weasel words. I'm sure what they say is accurate, but without a reference that shows an empirical survey result of how many Jewish parents intend to raise their children Jewish it seems to be an unnecessary definer. Ozlucien (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - there is not source provided to show that most Jewish parents intend to raise their children in their faith. It's also tangential to the central point - that some Jews prefer their children to receive even fairly commonplace aspects of religious education from other Jews and not from a  secular institution like a public school. I've removed the words while retaining the meaning of the concern. Any opposing viws or comments welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As most do? 

message: I don't have a lot to contribute here; all I have to say is, what exactly does "bear false witness" mean? For me it's the least clear of them all. I assume it means don't spread lies about others, but I really can't be sure, and I think this article ought to have something about that, given that the phrase is archaic and strange, it needs some sort of explanation. 75.70.163.198 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps perjury would be a better word to use.  Jon513 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some clarification? 

message: I have removed a long comment by Newworldthinkers (talk · contribs) which was a criticism and commentary on the commandments.  For those interesting in reading it can be found at http://relig-i-diculous.blogspot.com/2008/01/ten-commandments-new-translation.html and you are welcome to comment there. I would like to remind everyone that the talk pages are to talk about ways to improves the article, not a general place to discuss the subject of the article.  Jon513 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we can't put editors' personal opinions in articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While Terry's comments are a bit over the sarcastic line, imo, he brings out a good point, that religous mythology should be presented as such.  In case this point is lost, I rememeber that at one point this article presented AS HISTORICAL FACT that the stones of the 10C where written thru the entire stone, and yet did not appear inverted when looked at from the back of the stone.  Nothing actionable here, just a reminder.Steve kap (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether these materials are fact or mythology is a matter of point of view. Some people regard them as fact, others as mythology. Both points of view are significant The neutral point of view policy prevents us from taking sides and saying who is right with respect to significant points of view. Wikipedia shouldn't present anything as fact; it should only present signicant opinions. An editor's personal agreement with one point of view or another is irrelevant. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, first, fact and mythology are not mutually exclusive.  Second, that fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it fact, and doesn't make it not a myth.  Think living Elvis. I would be perfectly OK to have an article saying that there are people that believe that Elvis is alive. But NOT OK to have an article saying that Elvis IS alive.
There may be case where notable sources disagree with come under the heading of history and what comes under the heading of myth, but really, not usually. And certainlly not in the case I mentioned.  
Moreover, my point was and is that mythology should be presented as such. If the source is the undisputed commonly head believes of a religous community, thats fine, but it should presented as such, as it is, I think mostly, curently in this article.  However, there is always a danger that those believers will present those believes as fact.  We have seen that in the history of this article, as I've pointed out with the example of the stone.  No source was presented forwarding the idea that these most improbable see-thru stones where a historical fact, only that it was part of a religous tradition.  And yet, it was presented as historical. I of course agree that editors opinions should be not relevent,  I am in fact trying to advanced that end thru the above reminder. Steve kap (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In hopes of removing any remaining possibility of doubt that what is being presented is a traditional religious view, I've moved this material from the "Biblical origins" heading to a new "Classical Jewish interpretations" subheading under the "Religious interpretations" section. I've added additional clarifying language identifying the Talmud as "the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition, and interpretation." I believe this should very clearly indicate that this material represents traditional religious interpretations. I hope this addresses the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think thats on the point. Agreed, the Talmud is a reliable source for tradition Jewish religious views, but its NOT a reliable source for history. It is this difference that I was wanting to highlight.  Maybe 1 year ago, I changed the heading form "History" to "Biblical Origins". Maybe your heading is more general, more accurate. My only point is that its not HISTORY, as history is understood my academics.   There are those that would disagree, but they'd be in the minority, and the burden of sourcing would be on them.  Steve kap (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Then let's have one section on "Biblical narrative" and another on "critical view", saying which stream (out of JEDP) modern scholarship regards the Ten Commandments as belonging to.  It doesn't need to go further and discuss the validity of the Biblical narrative as a whole, except as it specifically relates to the Ten Commandments. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feed back.  I think that sets up a false dichotomy. My whole point is that there is no just one cohesive biblical narrative.  Also, I don't think there is just one stream that modern scholarship regard the Ten C belong to.  Rather, I think they would hold, its a combination of different stories.  Maybe if it was labeled "The Origin of the 10 C According to Various Traditions" or "Mythical Origins" or "Origin Traditions". Then, in that section, simply ref to all the different origin traditions, the 20 Ex story, the 34 Ex story (and its relation to the stones, the Ethical 10C and the Ritual 10C, and all contraversy there), how Dotaronemy re-told the story and what why, what the Tulmod has to say about it, what most people think, etc. 
Its simple, and its honest. We don't decide whats right, we just put in whats there.
 Steve kap (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised 10 commandments