Time to put the ten commandments back in the classroom?

[Ombligo]

This was just the senate, apparently, the house hasn't taken it up - yet

[Janit]

There are disagreements about how to allocate the material in #1 and #2, and whether coveting all goes into #10 or should be split between #9 and #10.

Although most of the material is the same, the decisions of what to leave out and what to group together do reflect differences in emphasis that are characteristic of each religious group.

There are at least three different ways to segment the text: Jewish, Protestant/Orthodox, and Catholic/Lutheran. There may be more.

For more religion than you ever thought you'd care about, do a close reading of the following:

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2005/03...ts-differ/

https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/...dments.php

Of particular interest are whether the prohibition against graven images stays or goes, and whether coveting someone else's wife should be distinguished from coveting their stuff.

[pdq]

But…but…it’s the infallible, unchanging word of God.

Right?

[SteveG]

Everything after the original Hebrew is just fiddling with it to distort to their own cultish beliefs.

[Don C]

I have been curious about the implementation of #2. If I "hate the L*rd" then bad things will happen to several generations of my family. If I "love the L*rd" then good things will happen even longer. So if I am among the haters, but my son is a lover, does that eliminate the threat to his progeny? And if I am a lover and my progeny is set up for good things, but my son is a hater, does that eliminate the good that was promised?

[Acer]

There's not a lot of "fiddling" to "distort" in the modern mainline Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The grouping is different, and some books that the Protestants divide into two are kept as single volumes in the Hebrew Bible. But as for the text itself, modern Protestant translations like the New International Version and the New American Standard try to stay true to the best available sources. Accuracy is very important to people who consider the Bible as it was written in its original languages to be inerrant. Translations are imperfect, though, and that is acknowledged in modern Bible scholarship.

The interpretation is different, obviously, for some passages, and in some verty significant ways to say the least.. But I don't think you'll get much substantial disagreement in interpretation of the Ten Commandments among those religions that hold them to be sacred.

[Acer]

Don C wrote:
I have been curious about the implementation of #2. If I "hate the L*rd" then bad things will happen to several generations of my family. If I "love the L*rd" then good things will happen even longer. So if I am among the haters, but my son is a lover, does that eliminate the threat to his progeny? And if I am a lover and my progeny is set up for good things, but my son is a hater, does that eliminate the good that was promised?

That's an interesting question for a Rabbi. The New Testament retcon kinda sidesteps that dilemma.

[Ombligo]

I wonder if this version is acceptable.

[Wags]

George had some thoughts. https://youtu.be/CE8ooMBIyC8

[kj]

Acer wrote:
[quote=RAMd®d]
…and widely dismissed by the gunners here as Unpossible!


There's been a trend here for some time to make baseless and or false claims just like the Repubs that earn ire here for doing so.

I dunno. After controlling for satire, sarcasm and dark humor, one may have to follow shorthand call-backs to the original points made before (and repeatedly), but ultimately substantial assertions are backed up.
No they aren't. They are ignored and only a couple people would ever care.