Jump to content

Talk:Ten Commandments

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ExTechOp (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 5 November 2015 (→Written vs Spoken). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Former good article nomineeTen Commandments was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Good Article Nominee (GAN)

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

—Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telpardec (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Written vs Spoken

I made a small edit, changing from 'THE story in Exodus (says the 10C were written by god' to 'A story in Exudus (says the the 10C were written by god. The reason for the edit, that I noted, was that ANOTHER story in Exudos clearly has the 10C SPOKEN by god. The edits were reverted, without comment, bu JFDWolf. JFD, can you tell me your reasons for reverting? Do you not know the verse that I'm ref to? Also, in future, do be so kind as to state your reasons for edits, as I did, and as WP policy would have you. It gets the conversations going so much easier when you state whats on your mind. Steve kap (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (sorry for the formating error, the text below. I can't seem to fix it. If anyone else can, I'd be greatful SK)[reply]

The reasons are exactly the same as before. Have a lovely day. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever having this discussion, and in any case if it was discussed, must have been a great while ago, and there is no telling if people would come to the same consensus now ( or even if we ever came to one then). Times change, people change, the state of public knowledge changes...

So...I ask again, what were your reasons for reverting? (Thanks for the kind wishes, I hope your day is lovely as well) Steve kap (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we'll if I must play both end of the chessboard, ill try my Brest. From other arguments presented, I think the idea is that there is an undefined group called Traditionalist, for whom I gather JFDW is a spokesman. Now, even thu experts in the field generally agree that the books of the bible contain several versions of the same story, this cuts no ice with the Traditionalist. And,when anyone can plainly read one story of Exudus having the 10c spoken by god , and another written in stone, none the less ,the Traditionalist prefer to see only one story. How they come to this conclusion is widely unknown, because the Tradtionaists, because of bias it's against there view ( they are seen as uncool), find it hard to get published. Is that about it? If not, please, let's have it from you. Steve kap (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's it then, I take it. For the other side, I'd say that it's not much debated these days (that is, by scholars, we put religius zealots to one size for this type of thing) that the Old Testament was written by piling together different stories, from related but varying traditions. So, we see versions versions of the same story next to eachother. And, specifically, that exodus 20, where the 10c were SPOKEN by god, and Ex 34, where they are written in stone by god or Moses are two different stories, by two different authors. Therefore, it would be wrong to ref to THE story in ex, as if there was only one. It should be A story, not THE story.Steve kap (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the commandments listed in the Written and Spoken version, for the most part, are not the same, shouldn't both sets be listed? The second decalogue story, for instance, contains commandments about not cooking a young goat in it's mothers milk, not making a treaty with anyone in the "promised land", and 2 separate celebrations (The feast of unleavened bread, and the festival of weeks). Seems like the objective way to handle the topic would be to include both sets (also seems like it would be helpful for anyone studying the topic to have both sets listed, rather than merely a mention of a second set of tablets being made, which implies that the same commandments were included in both sets, which the text doesn't bear out). -James 24.255.125.196 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck finding where is was discussed and settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.52.251 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give up, do you? The archives are full of these arguments, at great length. Yes, the "ritual decalogue" is important, and needs to be mentioned in this article as a possible (though not undisputed) source for the Ten Commandments as we have them. But it is not what is meant by "the Ten Commandments". You might as well list Latin as a form of Italian. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't give up, not when faced with unsupported assertions. Nor do I allow myself to be pulled off topic. If anyone as any evidence to support Jfws claim that THiS subject has been discussed, and with consensis, let them bring it. On the other side of the coin, I have presented facts, well documented, fwww.xnxx.com/video2517648or my position, f you have a counter to those , let's hear it.Steve kap (talk),
It would be nice if the reasons why the "ritual decalogue" are not "the ten commandments" (even though the text presents them as "the words of covenant") were more clearly explained in the article, the section on the former is somewhat lacking in this respect. Yeah, I know, can't do because of full blown edit war. — ExTechOp (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table is flawed

The table listing various numberings is pretty lame. First, I'm not stupid but I don't understand it. Second, the various columns refer to various "traditions" but leave that concept completely undefined. Third, the third largest Christian sect is Anglican, (which is NOT Protestant afaiac) and I don't see them in the table? Makes me want to go dig up my King James... I suggest revising the table and merging cells if that row's entry is part of a group. Also, the bullet point on the bottom is complete nonsense. As another comment claims, the ESV does NOT use "thou" - this makes the whole table BOGUS. I see little reason to include the link(s) which the bullet point promotes in the table, a 'see also' at the end of the article would be more appropriate, imho. That is, remove the links and correct the text to reflect the actual source of the text in the table. (I think its pretty important to retain the (archaic) use of 'thou', my guess is that is what most people familiar with the 10 Commandments expect, and this might be why the ESV isn't the source now.) Oh, also: the last 3 rows contain parenthetical text which should NOT be in parentheses. The way its structured makes no sense to me. If its Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife, then why in the world would Thy Neighbor's Wife be placed in parentheses???! Abitslow (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Law

I've tagged this article as of interest to WikiProject Law. Its omission seems like a big oversight to me. However, I'm not a member of that WikiProject, so maybe they've rejected it. If so, it would be good to add hidden text with the WikiProjects asking others not to tag it as such in the future. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 60

Is Jan Kreeft (ftnote 60) a mistake for Peter Kreeft (footnote 61)? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath Day

The statement that "Until the 2nd and 3rd century, Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath" is marked "citation needed" and that is true! If you go to the "main article: Sabbath in Christianity" you will read "Patristic writings attest that by the 2nd century AD, the observance of a corporate day of worship on the first day (Sunday) had become commonplace." I suggest that the line in this article be rewritten to be less contentious, and to fit better with the 'main article'. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cheese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.199.13.182 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_Commandments&oldid=689177451"