Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Isn't the Anglican and the protestant numbering the same? Or am I being too simplistic?--Bobbing up 05:49, 17 January 2008 (EST)

No, I think the one here is the Anglican numbering - the typical protestant one (or Lutheran one, anyway) considers "no graven image" and "taking the name in vain" as one commandment while on the other hand dividing the last one in two, following St. Augustine. The problem is there are so many different protestant churches around, and I don't know if there's any concensus among them. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)
From an - albeit brief - period of "research" on the intertubes, (Or in other words I skimmed the WP article) I seem to find that the Lutheran one is the same as the catholic and the protestant and the Anglican are the same. --Bobbing up 06:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)
That's probably right. I'm not sure it's a point worth spending too much effort on, anyway, other than noting the differences exist. The content remains fundamentally the same no matter the numbering, after all, and that's the important thing. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:11, 17 January 2008 (EST)

As someone with experience in no less than three Lutheran synods, I can anecdotally confirm that the Lutheran numbering is the same as the Catholic numbering--one idol commandment, two covet commandments.--Bayesupdate 14:38, 17 January 2008 (EST)


A minor quibble, but all those identical subheaders make section editing a bit of a drag - when the page is returned it goes to the first example of the header name. Can we add numbers after them, perhaps? (like, "Legal and social ramifications (3)")? humanUser talk:Human 08:46, 17 January 2008 (EST)

No. --10:14, 17 January 2008 (EST) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Sorry, bunchanumbers, your terse "opinion" does not count for much. humanUser talk:Human 10:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Put some numbers in front. Better? Could anybody insert some appropriate biblical font for the commandments themselves?--Bobbing up 10:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)
That works - although it's not necessary on the main headers. Olde English? Let me see what's web friendly. humanUser talk:Human 11:02, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I thought it might help to differentiate them. But I don't mind if the get zapped.--Bobbing up 12:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)


How's this?

Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

I couldn't find any obviously King James era calligraphy inspired fonts yet that are browser supported. I'll keep looking though. humanUser talk:Human 11:06, 17 January 2008 (EST)


font = "village"

font = "symbol"

humanUser talk:Human 11:16, 17 January 2008 (EST)

font = kidtyperule

font = manticore

font = rothenberg

font = crusades


Ooooo. Some of those last ones are nice - but I see that they are gifs rather than text. On the other hand I suppose that we are never going to edit them, so it doesn't' make that much difference. Are the gifs hard to create? I'm taken by the last one, but possible in a smaller font size. Any other people got ideas?--Bobbing up 12:20, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, the problem with using fancy fonts is if they aren't on people's computers, they won't work. But made as images like this, anything I can find to download can be used. And, as you say, we don't have to edit them. They are easy to make. High light and copy text, go to PSP, make new image, click the "text" tool, crop excess white space, save. Then upload. I liked the crusades one as well (the last one). Just make sure the text is exactly right before I copy it. Oh, and I made them sort of big on purpose - after all, these are being "proposed" by some christofascists as the fundamental law of the land. humanUser talk:Human 13:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)
PS, the images are "tiny" - basically 1k each. humanUser talk:Human 13:13, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Here's a scan from the KJV first edition for inspiration - the Crusade font is pretty close, actually. MS Word also has one called CloisterBlack. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:30, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Cool, thanks! By the way, here's where I am digging for the perfect RW 10C font: humanUser talk:Human 13:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Command 2.gif

smaller type size, old london font. How wide should I make these do you think? this one is about 476 px. humanUser talk:Human 13:46, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Looking at the example on screes I'd say quite a bit wider.--Bobbing up 13:48, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Also I just corrected a mistake in that one. There should be a full stop after "water under the earth." The verse changes there too, so perhaps a paragraph break for legibility?--Bobbing up 13:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
No. --14:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Yes, I'm thinking going 600 wide (remember, not every is looking at this stuff on a 1280 resolution). And before I run them all off, I'll triple check for typos ;) This one, yes, has a natural break at "thou shalt not bow" - isn't it two verses? humanUser talk:Human 14:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
No. --14:29, 17 January 2008 (EST)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Yes, verse five begins ..."Thou shalt not bow ..."--Bobbing up 14:38, 17 January 2008 (EST) Verse six begins "And shewing ..."

OK, are you happy with the font & font size? If you are, I'll do up the others - but I'll only comment out the existing text to make life easier for future changes. Still want me to break # into two bits? I think it's ok as runon text. PS, bunchanumbers, don't waste your time typing "no" unless you explain some sort of reason. humanUser talk:Human 19:52, 17 January 2008 (EST)

OK, font and text size are good. I'm afraid I don't understand: but I'll only comment out the existing text to make life easier for future changes. If you think runon test is OK, then I've got no big problems with it. However the later commentary text makes the point that it's really two separate commandments, so a break would my personal preference - but as I say, it's no big deal. :-) Thanks. :-) --Bobbing up 03:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)

but I'll only comment out the existing text to make life easier for future changes.: When I put in the image for the 2nd commandment, I deleted the text. When I put in #4, I put <!-- .... --> around the text, which is how you do a "comment" in html. That way the text stays, but does not display. Useful if you're editing the commentary, since if you edit the whole section, you can see the text in your edit box. I'll break up the one that is two verses. Are any others that way? Also, I'd really like to make the commentary headers look nicer - like maybe not making them headers, but perhaps just centered and bold? It will make the TOC look a lot nicer, and I don't think it will hurt the ability to edit. humanUser talk:Human 08:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Ah I see. It might be nice to edit the 10th with a break as that one is counted as two by some faiths. I agree that the commentary headers could be a lot more artistic - it was the best I could do. :-( --Bobbing up 09:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I'll work on it sporadically today, and try to pretty up the headers while avoiding edit conflicts ;) Do you think the text images should be at the left or centered? humanUser talk:Human 10:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I've through #4, all the same way - take a look before I wreck the next six, OK? humanUser talk:Human 11:42, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Nice. I think centered is good. --Bobbing up 12:10, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I've done all ten, and cleaned up the headers. Did some copyediting while I was in there, too. There were a lot of sentence fragments. But obviously it has been "under construction". humanUser talk:Human 14:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Great. :-) But I think you may have missed the last one? Or do you want to be able to covet someone's wife's ass? Yes, the language could be expanded on many of them.--Bobbing up 14:33, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Eh, my freudian slip was showing there! I still wish you guys had preferred the "village" or kidtyperule fonts :( humanUser talk:Human 14:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sesame Street[edit]

Is my Sesame Streeting this up okay? --Edgerunner76 10:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think it really works with the tone of this article, which is a pity. Maybe we need fun:10C or 10C by Sesame Street? Do you mind if I rollback your edits? humanUser talk:Human 10:49, 18 January 2008 (EST)
No, I don't mind. --Edgerunner76 10:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks. But I really do think we should also have a completely silly article on the 10C, and your idea might be a good framework for that article. humanUser talk:Human 11:00, 18 January 2008 (EST)


I suggest we try to avoid saying things like "yet another xyz" & the like. Because if the earlier entry gets changed, it reads badly. Can we try to make each block of critique relatively self-contained?

Ooh, ooh, and we should have a summary section (score: 3 good laws, 2 good ideas (?) and 5 burdensome impositions) too? humanUser talk:Human 16:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, I thought about your first point too, thing is it would give some repetition. With regard to the second point. There are really three classes. Really bad laws. OK moral advice. And good legal principles. (In fact, if you go beyond King James it gets even more complicated. The one about theft for example is said by some to be am injunction against stealing a man and selling him into slavery. But as this is an answer to biblical literalists we probably needn't go there.) Perhaps we could give an RW score for (for example) legal utility, moral utility. We could have a vote!--Bobbing up 16:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, the repetition might be weird, but if its written differently each time it's not so bad. Also, sometimes repetition makes a point clearer. Your three classes are the same as the ones I listed... just named differently. But you "get" my suggestion, right? I know it is sort of mentioned before the analysis, but I think it might come better afterwards. And let's not do any more "voting" for a while ;) humanUser talk:Human 16:55, 18 January 2008 (EST)
OK. Obviously I don't own the article, so you're as welcome to edit it as me. Though I prefer my definitions to yours. :-) With regard to the point about the constitution and the European declaration I think a mention should come earlier rather than later. In fact, I was thinking of putting them both in the article as neither the first amendment nor the ninth article are very big, and they could make a nice modern contrast.--Bobbing up 17:03, 18 January 2008 (EST)
My definitions were just quickie off the cuff ones, not intended to be used "as is" - I was just paraphrasing the way you had described the commandments in the article. Hey, how about putting the EU thing and the 1st amendment before the commandments, and a report card after? Does that make sense? humanUser talk:Human 21:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
You mean after each commandment or after the article - or both? Or a mention after each one and an analysis at the end?--Bobbing up 03:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Added Bill of rights and human rights.--Bobbing up 05:20, 19 January 2008 (EST)
On first and second added "conclusion". My idea is to add some final words at the end to summarize. This on the basis of: tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them; tell then what you've told them.--Bobbing up 08:28, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I was thinking of a final score tally - nothing fancy, just, say (off the top of myhead and probably wrong, just for example:

  • 5 really bad laws: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
  • 2 OK moral advice: 4, 8
  • 3 good legal principles: 6, 9, 10

All the reasons would be in the sections, so no need to go over them again.

I was also thinking last night that the things like the EU and first amendment could go in appendices, but I see that they take up very little space, so that's cool. Oh, and shouldn't "conclusion" come after the religious considerations? It's sort of weird looking in the middle, even if it's all about he legal and social ramifications.

No big deal either way I suppose.

Oh, and as far as "ownership" - although this is a wiki, of course, there are times when an article is pretty much the baby of one editor, and we don't seem to mind. But usually, it's something a bit arcane that no one else knows about. The 10C is so familiar to us all that it's tempting to jump in and help. If you really want to try to flesh out what you want to say, you could always use some sort of "construction: template, or some italics at the top saying you're workign on it and to please wait before jumping in. I have a tendency to turn sentence fragments into sentences wherever I see them, and if that screws up your "notes to expand from", your thought and work process, just let me know. I had fun adding the funky font images ;) humanUser talk:Human 09:11, 19 January 2008 (EST)


I find it interesting that we are mentioning the European convention on human rights. It is quite certain that there is a movement to do this silliness in the US, cf. one Chuckleberry for President. Are there similar movements in other countries (leaving aside Muslim fundies wanting Sharia law for now)? Because using Euro law to judge an American movement seems a little off. But if there is even some splinter group anywhere in Europe, mentioning them totally justifies judging the concept via Euro law as well as US. (Ditto for anywhere else in the world). Oh, and what about the UN articles of human rights thingie? (I host a copy here.) humanUser talk:Human 09:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

There is at least one country in Europe with is (or at least was) into this sort of thing in a big way - Poland. Their previous government had members who were surprisingly creationist. There is also the question of "faith schools" in the UK. So, while creationism and religious literalism is not as big in Europe as it is in the US it is by no means nonexistent. Some feel that it is growing. I think that a mention of any UN human rights objectives would be good as well.--Bobbing up 10:00, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Here is a link about creationism in Poland.--Bobbing up 14:24, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Great link, thanks. It appears their governing conservative coalition resembles the US one vaguely, too, in that it depends on a coterie of religious nutcases to build its "majority". humanUser talk:Human 14:07, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Actually they were chucked out a few months back when they held an early general election. :-) But the very fact they exist is worrying.--Bobbing up 14:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Check out the Boston Globe article I added to "according to" on 2/10, about AIG (etc.) trying to destroy science edumacation in Europe/UK. humanUser talk:Human 14:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Huckabee in Michigan[edit]

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." User:PalMD

Adultery and Fornication - 7th commandment[edit]

I see that we say: While modern interpretations tend to consider this to only apply to married people, adultery in King James' time was any sexual act performed outside of a marriage. I would have though that sexual acts outside of marriage would be "fornication". A quick search of the King James gives me 37 instances of the word "fornication" and a further 6 variations on "fornicator". Consequently the word was obviously known to the KJV translators. As a result I have a put a "fact" tag next to the comment. — Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs

I thought that originally adultery was sex with a married woman who was not your wife. Basically - don't sully another man's property, whether you be married or single. However, that would make any single woman fair game, even if you were married. This seems to tie in with what we read in the Bible. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:15, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't know what you read in the Bible, but you may have missed Exodus 22:16-17. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
IIRC, "fornix" were the low walls that lined the Roman roads...behind which prostitutes plied their trade, this then gives the root word for our "modern" fornication. As to whether the Hebrew gave a different word for pre-marital sex and adultery I dunno. CЯacke® 18:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm not suggesting that the Bible has no problem with fornication, what I'm saying is that it's not mentioned in the ten commandments - although it is prohibited elsewhere. This may not be really surprising as there are verses in other passages which ban incest, (male) homosexuality, bestiality, cross-dressing etc - but they are also not mentioned in the ten commandments. It looks to me as though we are wrong when we say that the King James translators felt that "any sexual act performed outside marriage" was "adultery" given that both the words "adultery" and "fornication" are used in different places and presumably they have (had) different meanings. I assume that the person who added the comment would be able to back it up. (AKjeldsen: errrr........ what is the significance of your reference?)--Bobbing up 04:59, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
That it lists a penalty for fornication with unmarried women, thus making them not "fair game." --AKjeldsenCum dissentiente 05:43, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, but it's got nothing to do with the Ten Commandments then? Just part of the many other sexual restrictions laws in the bible?--Bobbing up 06:05, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Just trying to correct a small misunderstanding is all. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 06:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the "penalty" for fornication with unmarried women was forceful marriage to the woman. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

From Wikipedia:

In Judaism, adultery was forbidden in the seventh commandment of the Ten Commandments, but this did not apply to a married man having relations with an unmarried woman. Only a married woman engaging in sexual intercourse with another man was considered to be adultery, in which case both the woman and the man were considered guilty [1].
In the Mosaic Law, as in the old Roman Law, adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not considered adultery. The penal statute on the subject, in Leviticus, 20:10, makes this clear: "If any man commit adultery with the wife of another and defile his neighbor's wife, let them be put to death both the adulterer and the adulteress" (see also Deuteronomy 22:22). This was quite in keeping with the occasional practice of polygamy among the Israelites (which is no longer practiced).
In halakha (Jewish Law) the penalty for adultery is strangulation for both the man and the woman, but this is only enacted when there are two independent witnesses who warned the offenders prior to the crime being committed. In the past, the legal standards for capital punishment were so high that a court that executed one person in seven (or, according to another account, seventy) years, was considered a bloodthirsty court. Although this penalty technically still applies, today Jewish courts do not execute anyone for any reason. Halakha forbids a man to continue living with a wife who cheated on him; he is obliged to give her a get or bill of divorce. Neither is the adulteress permitted to the adulterer, who must also give her a bill of divorce if he married her.

It seems to restrict it even further, that not only would it only applied to married people but specifically only to married women. >_< --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:34, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Most likely basis for what I was told: (from Wikipedia) "In Matthew 5:28, expresses that adultery is committed in the heart by a man who looks with lust at a woman, and made no distinction about whether the woman was married or not." It would appear that it all depends on which way you take the bible literally... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I've zapped it. Remember that the purpose of this article is to see if a literalist interpretation of the ten commandments would be compatible with modern legal systems. The objective is not to provide a complete historical analysis of them. That might or might not be a good idea - but it would be another article.--Bobbing up 16:02, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd just like to point out that my throw away remark above was not meant to imply that the bible does not prohibit extra-marital sex, but that there are many examples of it occurring. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:40, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately, in modern legal systems words must be defined. It is not sufficient to ban "adultery" without defining what it is. To do so, it's worth looking back at historical meanings of that word in order to see what they applied to and what they didn't. For instance, the prohibition of killing people is superseded by the laws given to Noah. God commanded specifically that a man may not make the choice to kill another man, and if he does kill another man, then his life is forfeit and belongs to god, and thus he should be killed as punishment. It's all about where you draw lines unfortunately. The prohibition against murder didn't mean anything in Nazi death camps, because the Jews, disabled, Gypsies and homosexuals were not humans... they were sub-humans, animals. The same reason why the US justified slavery. In legal term, definitions are everything. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

This is the one that Bill didn't like.--Hillary Rodham Clinton 18:46, 24 May 2008 (EDT)


I have cut this from the article: "Is adultery always wrong? Almost always it is. If your spouse is seriously abusive and/or chronically insane finding someone else mightn't be wrong." It doesn't seem to fit with the article and looks more like a debate topic.--Bobbing up 13:28, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

True. Why the hell not. --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink Now where did I put that Boeing.. 13:30, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

How Christians apply it[edit]

I'm not sure that the "How Christians apply it" section added to the sixth commandment helps the article a lot. The article is about what the implications of applying the ten comandments in the present would would be. This new section seems to be a bit more like an essay against CP.--Bobbing up 10:24, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Also, the section is a logical non sequitur, I don't see the connection between "Christians" and "vaccine denial"... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I guess it's "Christians = AS". AS believes this, so it's a Christian thing. I'd say we cut it to this talk page and invite the contributor(s) to either make a better fit with the article or (my preferred solution) create a essay.--Bobbing up 15:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
It's a PC joynt, just ask her to and I'm sure she'll move it somewhere else. And I agree, it would make a good essay. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Here 'tis:

How Christians apply it[edit]

Conservative Christians sometimes act as if only killing people directly mattered. Other causes of unnecessary deaths also matter. Andrew Schlafly opposes vaccination against the life threatening Papiloma Virus. If the Schlafly campaign prevents some girls getting vaccine there will quite likely be unnecessary deaths. A serial killer who kills, for example ten people faces execution or life imprisonment without parole in any civilized country. Campaigns against life saving vaccines can easily cause ten deaths or many more.

Irresponsible campaigns against vaccination can’t easily be prevented. There are free speech issues. The supporters of vaccination can also exercise free speech and point that those who run irresponsible campaigns can be seen as equivalent to murderers. Any sane person who is intelligent enough to get a PhD by his own efforts should understand the implications of opposing vaccination that doctors recommend. There is a case for arguing that such a person is morally equivalent to a cold blooded murderer. There is a second possibility. Somebody who is not sufficiently intelligent to get a PhD by his own efforts may get one through, for example his mother’s influence. Such a person may not fully understand the implications of his actions and his campaign may be morally equivalent to manslaughter rather than murder.

The death rate is marginally lower in many advanced European countries, notably Britain and France than in the United States despite lower living standards. In these countries Universal Health Care prevents many deaths. Conservative Christian Republicans campaign against Universal Health Care. This campaign can also be seen as morally equivalent to manslaughter of murder depending on how far the campaigners understand the effects of their campaign.

ħumanUser talk:Human 19:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

20 Commandments[edit]

10 commonly known ones (there are a lot more mitzvote) isn't enough. How about: Honor thy Children --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 16:41, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If you want to go making your own up, you might try here: Fun:Ten Commandments.--Bobbing up 17:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Originally there were fifteen. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Commandmant Number 12: Do not destroy thy neighbors' wikisig. For if thou do, you shall be banned. (pay attention, Human) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 17:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Commandment Number 13: Thou shall click this link
Commandment 12.5: Thee shall make sure the default version of your sig is not in double-size text for it buggeth a cranky beachrat... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Commandment 12.75: Thee shall get Bradley Hand ITC as a font or thou shall be smote by the evil wikisig. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 17:50, 4 January 2009 (EST)
So you expect hundreds - maybe even thousands - of people to go download some lame font just to make your sig work? Please, get over yourself. Really. Hand yourself a Bradley and congratulate yourself. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:31, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I'm using a different font right now because I'm on a MAC. It looks just fine. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 09:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Sixth Commandment[edit]

That's precisely what I meant. Thank's for making it clearer. I find it interesting that teh fly goes on about how wonderful Christianity is and how moralistic it is, when other cultures already had that in place. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 20:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

The golden rule "do on to others as you would have do on to you" is credited to Confucius at about 300 BC. That is why he is on the fresco at the supreme court building. - User 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I think that was actually invented by every single civilized species around it's inception- dolphins exhibit similar behavior, I think. On different note, dolphins seem to 'like' humans, and several have had to be forcefully removed because they got 'too friendly.' --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 20:16, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Forcefully removed from what? Cinema audiences? Airline cockpits? The State of Nevada? Tom Cruise's dressing room? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:21, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Forcefully removed from beaches. Do not blame me. You asked. This too. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 21:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I still prefer the version in my imagination where they get thrown out of theatres & casinos for causing trouble. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Font vs image[edit]

I have found a font that's similar to the one used on the image. Compare:

Command 2.gif

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

If you have a browser that supports it (Internet Explorer 4, Firefox 3.5, Safari 3, Opera 10 or Chrome 2), you should see this text in a font similar to the image above. Unlike the image however, the text can be copied, and if you resize the window it will wrap.

When downloadable fonts are not supported, it will look like this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Nx (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it, but I assume that's because I'm not on Opera 10 yet (is that even available?). Looks good in IE and FF though. Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that in my version of Firefox - 3.0.11 it's just text- and the updater tells me that some of my themes and extensions will stop working if I update it. My version of Chrome 2 shows just text as well, and it says that it's up to date.
While having new fonts will be a good thing, I'm not sure that we will ever need to be able to edit the words in this particular article. And if I wanted to copy the words I'd probably go somewhere with a more complete King James text. So while font updating is probably a good idea in the long run, I'm not convinced that this article is necessarily the best place to make the case.--BobNot Jim 18:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Font vs image again[edit]

So now that hopefully everyone is using a browser supporting web fonts, can we make the switch? -- Nx / talk 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

But what if they aren't? I see the font, now, btw. But not everyone updates their browsers regularly. I agree it would be nicer to have it be text, but basically we wanted everyone to see it the way we intended. Do both versions (image and font) work on phones and stuff like that? Or do they both break? Can the default font at least be a serif font? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that it's legible on all platforms then I'd have no problem with making a change. What I'm still not sure of is the technical advantage of the change. As I mentioned above - it's not as if the words in the KJV are going to change so we'll never have any real need to edit them. But if there is some other advantage - bandwidth for instance - then cool.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The font files are bigger than the images combined (the WOFF file that Firefox 3.6 supports is 25kb, the images are 22, the ttf is 36), however, the font is just one file compared to 10 (having lots of requests for small files is bad too, that's one of the reasons why the wigonav template uses a combined image). That and the text improves usability: The image can't be reflowed, so on small screens it's either too small to read or you have to scroll sideways. And if someone disables images, they don't see anything at all, whereas with the text version they see the text in the regular font (oh the horror!). I know that mobile safari doesn't support web fonts to save bandwidth, but is it really better to give iphone users 22kb worth of images that are bigger than their screen resolution just so they can see the commandments in a fancy font? -- Nx / talk 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'm convinced.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

42 laws of Ma'at[edit]

There are various things on the web (low level bloggery and new age sites) comparing the ten commandments with ancient Egypt's 42 laws of Ma'at.[2][3] Is there anything in this or is it New Age hogwash? Real first name and last initial (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC

Year old, but I'll comment. It is what you make of it. Maat 42 laws are 42 laws. the 10 commandments are 10 commandments. certainly, the idea of a list of critical laws came from outside of israel, but there is no reason to assume that maat's laws have jack shit to do with 10C directly.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


I have cut the following sentence from the end of here as it seems to make no sense.

  • Specifically it allows the room for "treating all gods in a stringently equal manner", which usually renders polytheism impractical based on a logic similar to the polygamy in Islam.

If I'm wrong no doubt somebody will put it back.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's an attempt to read the text in a literal manner (if all gods are exactly equal, none others can be before you, they are all besides you). Another such attempt would be, we can have no other gods before you, but we can have other gods after you. I think this sort of overly literal reading of the text is possibly a bit silly, even if amusing; we should try to interpret texts based on what their original authors are likely to have meant by them, not based on what amusing wordplay we can devise. (((Zack Martin))) 11:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It is likely, and frankly, proven that the people who wrote teh ten C were not monotheistic. that is a very likely reason the first is written as it is. "no other gods" as opposed to "no idols" or "no fake gods". which has nothing to do with the line Bob cut, of course. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

good article - silver at least[edit]

i read through this again, and between the presentation, the facts, and the goat, it's quite good. can I nominate it for at least a silver brain?Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

mabe add a list[edit]

Or two: 1. List of actions now legal which would be outlawed if the 10 commandments were signed into law

    a) choose your own religion
    b) criticize your parents's belief
    c) find somebody other than your spouse attracive
    d) want a new laptop (or any other gadget your neighbour has and you don't)


2. List of actions now illegal which would become legal if the 10 commandments were signed into law

    a) rape
    b) torture
    c) bribery
    d) extortion


I understand the first list. I'm not sure the second works. Not even the OT has the Ten C as the only laws. Of course if you include all the laws then you would have to add eating shrimp to the first list.--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)