understand "take the name of lord in vain"

There's not much hope in understanding that phrase; it is the result of bad translation. The commandment should read "You shall not swear falsely by the name of God."

This is one version of the meaning:

What does it mean to “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”? That has been the subject of quite a bit of debate. Some have argued that this prohibition was limited to the use of the name of God in any frivolous manner. Others have argued that it was a prohibition against the use of the name of God in magical or occult practices.

A more common interpretation for theologians (though not as common for the average believer) used to be that the Third Commandment prohibited one from breaking any contract that was sworn in the name of God.

Sponsored Links
The 10 Commandments
Aff. Everything to do with The 10 Commandments.
eBay.com.au

God -total Union with God
Why Jesus is the Only Way to Union? The Answer May Suprise You.
www.georgefoxwritings.com

Lollipop Lane Bedding
Quality Baby Bedding and Nursery Interiors by Lollipop Lane
www.lollipoplane.co.uk
Thus, if someone promises by the name of God to do something and then fails to do it, that would qualify as having taken the name of the God in vain.
There is strong textual support for this because the Exodus version can be translated as “in a vain oath” while the Deuteronomy version can be translated as “in a false oath.” Better translations of the Bible rarely say “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” and instead say “swear falsely by the name of God.” That is not, however, what you will usually find on popular listings, for example those used in government displays or monuments.

Jews typically treat the prohibition against swearing falsely by the name of God to prohibit four different types of oaths: those that affirm as true something known to be false, those affirming as false something known to be true, those that affirm the truth of something obvious (due to its triviality), and those promising some act known to be impossible or outside one’s abilities.

All of the interpretations above differ in many ways, but there is one common thread in that they forbid the use of the name of God in a manner that would dishonor God. It must be remembered that God is a “jealous” God and will allow no dishonor to come to him through the actions of his chosen people. To appropriate God’s name for deceitful or otherwise prohibited actions (as with magical spells) would amount to dishonoring God and God’s covenant with the Hebrews.

The most popular interpretation today is that the Third Commandments prohibits swearing, especially swearing that includes the word “God,” but there is little or no basis for such a reading of the text. You won’t find many responsible theologians suggesting such an interpretation but you will find it in many popular texts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment03.htm


The meaning of in vain is:

in vain

To no avail, useless, as in All our work was in vain. [c. 1300]

I beat you by a few seconds :p

This statement is part of the ten commandments God is said to have given to Moses. Commandment number three says, " Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

The general interpretation of that commandment is that one should pay the proper respect to God. Popular culture in many areas has expanded it to mean that one shouldn't curse using his name.

It most certainly is not the result of bad translation. It is rendered in the English appropriate to the time of that translation, early 17th C.

I stand by my claim that it was a bad translation. It very well may have been translated perfectly to match the statement of the original writings. However, when people are expected to follow the translated commandments or face damnation I certainly think it is the job of the translator to make the commandment less ambiguous. I would defend this translation no more than I would defend an equally ambiguous instruction in a manual for defusing bombs.

You are writing about one of the major works of the English language, and you are writing from a standpoint of deep ignorance.

Here's some information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible

I could care less if it is considered a major work of the English language. That does not suggest immunity from criticism.

Furthermore, before claiming someone's response is of "deep ignorance" it helps to understand one's contention. I do not mind the 17th century writing style. It is the ambiguity of the phrase I take issue with.

The words "take oaths in" should've been used in place of "take" because the phrase is gibberish in its current state. It should be obvious that the commandment is not regarding humans that try to take the name of God. The words "without success" is preferrable to "in vain" because it is less ambiguous. The words "leave unpunished" should've been used in place of "hold guiltless" because it is more accurate. For example, one may ask for forgiveness of what one is guilty of and perhaps avoid punishment but when correctly translated it presents no possibility of forgiveness because all of the commandment-breakers shall be punished. In modern English the phrase should say "you shall not take oaths in the name of the Lord your God without success, for the Lord will not leave unpunished anyone who takes oaths in his name without success."

You can verify this translation by reading the scholar notes provided in the New English Translation Bible. They do not revise the commandment though. I think it is because it would make their God look less merciful to their readers than the correct translation would. Those scholars would not support my "bad translation" claim because they use the same translation but I think I have provided enough evidence to support my position. It is certainly incorrect to say my position on the matter is due to "deep ignorance."

express my thanks
I'm grateful to your kindness.All of you supply me so much information .Thanks again.Best wishes.