Talk:Ten Commandments

• I propose that we use the king james version for this entry.
  • Why? Personally, I believe we should keep the NIV because it gives a more precise meaning for some of the words. PhilipB 11:17, 5 January 2007 (EST)
    • Because the King James version is so familiar, so beloved, and of such great literary importance, it seems to me that if an article is describing a familiar or frequently quoted passage in the Bible, it should present both a (presumably more) accurate modern translation and also the more frequently quoted King James version. Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 12:25, 5 January 2007 (EST)
    • P. S. Obviously the King James text continues to be such a mental landmark that even if we use modern language for the commandments themselves, we still call them "The Ten Commandments" rather than "The Ten Laws" or "The Ten Commands." Dpbsmith 12:31, 5 January 2007 (EST)
      • Dpbsmith, I agree with you. Why don't we post both as SharonS recommends? Does anyone else have an opinion? PhilipB 14:12, 5 January 2007 (EST)

• There are advantages and disadvantages to both versions. I think the best idea is to post both. Multiple translations convey a better sense of the differing ways in which the Hebrew can be interpreted. This will make the page much more well rounded and complete.--SharonS 12:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Trouble is that an encyclopedia is supposed to refer to the evidence, not quote it verbatim. It would be a nice idea to quote all the translations (there are dozens), but IMO PhilipB's proposal is the best, not because the KJV is always the most accurate (it isn't) but because it is the most literal (sometimes absurdly so), and therefore tends to preclude all 'interpretations'. It is also out of copyright. Given the tendency around here to quote the NIV (!) that would seem to be a wise precaution!--Petrus 13:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The Ten Commandments in US law

You would probably be better off looking up the Noachide covenant and its influence on law - in paticular Hugo Grotius along with the 102nd Congress passing P.L. 102-14. --Mtur 22:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

American spellings

Shouldn't the American spellings be used in this article? Fairandbalanced 13:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe they are now! Though quite how they knew what they would be in 1611 I cannot imagine! ;) --Petrus 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)