Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SpaceMonkey · 12-23-2003, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Methinks I employed a "double negative" in my last post!

Thanks for clarifying.. I thought you'd lost the plot.

GakuseiDon · 12-23-2003, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
[B]Gang:

Methinks I employed a "double negative" in my last post!

Anyways, let me reiterate: there are no "ten commandments." The texts give lists of commandments from which we rather artificially choose ten. So, the D version has some of P's with changes and P and D miss a lot of J--like Child Sacrifice!

"No ten commandments"? According to Strong's, the word "10" (eser) is actually being used in Deut 10:4. It isn't a modern convention. What part is artificial?

Quote:

Thus, GD, this:

". . . and more to show why the 10 Commandments were special - i.e. they were the only ones spoken by God in the presence of the Israelites"

is not true according to the texts.

In the form of the Bible that we have, it is most certainly true.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The development of the Bible is interesting from a historical aspect, but what I'm discussing is the final editted form of the Bible.

Quote:

Now back to GD's question . . . did the "final version" consider them all congruent?

Yes!

And no!

The redactor--whom Friedman thinks is P or the school of P which is controversial--is happy to have contradictions that do not threaten his main theology. So what if Moses walks past the same rock after 40 years and repeats the miracle! He "fixes" J to make his commandments be the "second" tablets. He does not so much care about accuracy as getting his point of view across. Heck, P--and if Friedman is correct--the Redactor add in Aaron all over the place diminishing Moses!

So P wanted to put his own ritual commands onto the second set? Fair enough - but the final editting and interpretation is by D. Ex 34:28 seems to me a desparate addition by D to link it to Deut 10 IMHO, to show that the two sets of stones are the same.

It still comes down to the same thing: at the end of the day, the plain reading of the text has the same things written on both sets of tablets.

Kosh · 12-23-2003, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon

It still comes down to the same thing: at the end of the day, the plain reading of the text has the same things written on both sets of tablets.

If that's the case, then why do so many people read it the other way? Including the rather intelligent people at Religioustolerance.org?

gregor · 12-23-2003, 07:15 AM

GD

Well, it took a dozen attempts through circuitous writing, but I think finally I understand your position, and I'll have to say, it's a unique one.

1. We have a list of items in Ex. 20.

2. There is no statement in Ex. 20 that these are the "10 Commandments" (copywrite Moses).

3. We have another list of items in Ex. 34:14-26.

4. There is a statement in Ex. 34:28 (two verses away, mind you) that Moses has the official "10 Commandments" (copywrite Moses).

5. But according to you the 10+/- items listed in Ex. 34:14-26 are NOT what was written on the second set of tablets - despite the clear implication (to me, at least) from the biblical text. Thus, the official list contains those items found in Ex. 20, and those items were re-written in Ex. 34:28. And despite the fact that (i) the list in verses 14-26 is physically located next to the statement in verse 28 and (ii) the fact that a number of the items listed in verses 14-26 are on the OFFICIAL 10 Commandments list, the Ex. 34 listing was not included on the official list.

OK - Good luck with that

Or maybe, just maybe, the occam's razor answer is that we have five different authors/editors trying to harmonize the multiple works all together. In which case, I agree with you that the term "contradiction" is really out of place in this discussion. "Pious fiction" and "goulash" are better terms.

Kosh · 12-23-2003, 11:16 AM

In the thread that started this, GD wrote:

Quote:

The confusion lies in Ex 24:28, where it is claimed that the word "he" is used to apply to Moses, when in fact it applies to God. (The NKJV capitalises the "He" to show this). I believe the original Hebrew doesn't use capitalisation, hence the ambiguity. But the context (from Ex 34:1) certainly shows it is God doing the writing.

GD - do you have any support that the original Hebrew meant that "he" to be capitalized?

Ie, is there any precedent for the OT to refer to YHWH this way? Any other examples?

For Doctor X - Any scholarly support for GD's position that "he" means YHWH and not Moses?

Or is it simply your interpretation of what that must mean, based on the fact that you need to make it work for apologetics?

Doctor X · 12-23-2003, 01:08 PM

My brain hurts. . . .

Anyways, I am on vacation and away from sources so bear with me a bit. . . .

Quote:

GD: "No ten commandments"? According to Strong's, the word "10" (eser) is actually being used in Deut 10:4. It isn't a modern convention. What part is artificial?

That is not part of the commandments quoted in Deut 5:6-17, and, unless you artificially group them, you do not come out with ten. Interestingly, the Darby translation gives the following rendering:

Quote:

1 At that time Jehovah said unto me, Hew for thyself two tables of stone like the first, and come up unto me into the mountain, and make thee an ark of wood; 2 and I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which thou didst break, and thou shalt lay them in the ark. 3 And I made an ark of acacia-wood, and hewed two tables of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tables in my hand. 4 And he wrote on the tables, as the first writing, the ten words which Jehovah spoke unto you on the mountain, from the midst of the fire, on the day of the assembly, and Jehovah gave them unto me.

Deut 10:1-4

no "10 Commandments." I do not have the Hebrew here and I would have to trust a Hebrew reader to say whether or not one should translate "10 Commandments" as you suggest.

Anyways, I am not sure I understand GD's "point." Are you arguing that there was a "10 Commandments" that got broken then refashioned? Are you arguing the story states that? Seriously.

Kosh:

Exodus 24 does not have a 28th verse. Do you mean 34:28 or something else?

--J.D.

Kosh · 12-23-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

Kosh:

Exodus 24 does not have a 28th verse. Do you mean 34:28 or something else?

--J.D.

yes, GD meant to write "34:28".

Doctor X · 12-23-2003, 01:27 PM

Cool.

Using Darby--hey, I am on line:

Quote:

-- And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread, and drank no water. -- And he wrote on the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words.

seems pretty clear from context that "he" is Moses. Now, shifting to the RSV, we have the same thing:

Quote:

And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

I already quoted this J version previously and noted that the RSV admits "commandments" is "words."

Searching around . . . HEY . . . look at this page: Unbound Bible. Lots of versions Here is Youngs Literal:

Quote:

And he is there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; bread he hath not eaten, and water he hath not drunk; and he writeth on the tables the matters of the covenant -- the ten matters.

So, to answer your question, it appears "he" refereth to Moses.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon · 12-23-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor
GD

Well, it took a dozen attempts through circuitous writing, but I think finally I understand your position, and I'll have to say, it's a unique one.

Not so unique actually... AFAIK, the objection has been around since the 19th C, and the solution has been around just as long. It isn't unique to me.

You are right about my writing though. Looking back, it was circular, and I should have been clearer earlier. My apologies!

Quote:

5. But according to you the 10+/- items listed in Ex. 34:14-26 are NOT what was written on the second set of tablets - despite the clear implication (to me, at least) from the biblical text. Thus, the official list contains those items found in Ex. 20, and those items were re-written in Ex. 34:28. And despite the fact that (i) the list in verses 14-26 is physically located next to the statement in verse 28 and (ii) the fact that a number of the items listed in verses 14-26 are on the OFFICIAL 10 Commandments list, the Ex. 34 listing was not included on the official list.

What about Ex 34:1 where God says that "He is going to write the same as on the first tablets"? This would have to be a contradiction, right? Also with the events of Deut 10? Just checking.

Quote:

Or maybe, just maybe, the occam's razor answer is that we have five different authors/editors trying to harmonize the multiple works all together. In which case, I agree with you that the term "contradiction" is really out of place in this discussion. "Pious fiction" and "goulash" are better terms.

"Pious fiction", "goulash": fair enough. "Contradiction": only if you decide that Moses wrote on the tablets, which hinges on the meaning of the pronoun "He".

Does the Bible actually state clearly that Moses writes on the tablets?

Does God ask Moses to write on the tablets?

Does God say that He would write on the tablets?

Beyond the "he" in Ex 34:28, is there anything in the Bible to say that Moses wrote on the tablets?

GakuseiDon · 12-23-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
In the thread that started this, GD wrote:

GD - do you have any support that the original Hebrew meant that "he" to be capitalized?

Ie, is there any precedent for the OT to refer to YHWH this way? Any other examples?

For Doctor X - Any scholarly support for GD's position that "he" means YHWH and not Moses?

Or is it simply your interpretation of what that must mean, based on the fact that you need to make it work for apologetics?

It is based on context, i.e. God promises to write on the tablets in Ex 34:1. Moses isn't told to write on any set of the tablets, simply to "write the commands", which is consistant with the other parts of the Bible, e.g. Moses writing down all the commandments in the Book of the Covenant.

As I've said, if "he wrote on the tablets" in Ex 34:28 refers to God, then it is consistant with EVERYTHING else. If it refers to Moses, then there are lots of problems elsewhere.

To the question of "he": is God referred to as "he" elsewhere in the Bible?

Most definitely!!!

You'll find (and Doc X I'm sure will back me up!) that in versions of the Bible where "he (God)" is capitalised, it is ALWAYS capitalised. Where is isn't, it never is.

To show this, look at Ex 34:9 and Ex 34:10. In both cases, it starts with a "he said". Ex 34:9 seems to refer to Moses, Ex 34:10 seems to refer to God. But there is no way of really telling except through context

The rules here are: http://www.isv.org/about_us/rules.htm

Quote:

Masculine references to God are retained. Because the original languages of Scripture provide no special indication (other than grammatical context, of course) to identify pronouns or predicate nominatives that refer to deity, predicate nominatives and pronouns whose antecedent is God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are rarely capitalized.

Where they are capitalised, Ex 34:28 uses "He".

An example of an "uncapitalised" version: KJV: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd034.html

Quote:

Exd 34:9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it [is] a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

Exd 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

... Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Note the "he said" in 34:9 and 34:10. Could that be Moses making the covenant in 34:10. After all, he also uses the word "LORD" there! A case could be mounted that Moses has suffered megalomania, and says he is going to do marvels!

Now, an example of a "capitalised" version: NKJV: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...o.x=24&Go.y=17

Quote:

9 Then he said, "If now I have found grace in Your sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray, go among us, even though we are a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance."

The Covenant Renewed
(Ex. 23:14-19; Deut. 7:1-6; 16:1-17)

10 And He said: "Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord.

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the *Ten Commandments.

The usual criticism is that the NKJV has put "He" in just to resolve the contradiction. But if it resolves all the contradictions so neatly (which it does), and the only way to determine whether it is "He" or "he" is from context, then why isn't this valid?

The problem is that we look at it with our "English-language" eyes on. Some languages sometimes imply the pronoun. And we are so used to seeing the capitalised "He" for God that we tend to assume that "he" doesn't refer to God. But as I've shown with the KJV, we can see that the lower-case is also used elsewhere.

Quote:

Doctor X
no "10 Commandments." I do not have the Hebrew here and I would have to trust a Hebrew reader to say whether or not one should translate "10 Commandments" as you suggest.

I believe that it actually translates as the "10 statements". If you check my Strong reference for Deut, the word "10" is definitely in there. (I hope I'm answering your point here).

Quote:

Doctor X
Anyways, I am not sure I understand GD's "point." Are you arguing that there was a "10 Commandments" that got broken then refashioned? Are you arguing the story states that? Seriously.

No, I think it is all myth. My point is that the Bible doesn't have two sets of stone tablets with different contents, and that this is an anachronistic feature suddenly discovered in the 19th century. There are errors in the Bible, but this is not one of them. By highlighting this as an error, people do a disservice to fighting inerrancy.

Perhaps Doc would be kind enough to check my references to Ex 34:9 and Ex 34:10 in the KJV. Is there any way other than context to decide whether either of them are "he" or "He"? How then do we decide for Ex 34:28?

(Ed to add) Another interesting example is Ex 34:34, where we have examples of "he" referring to both God and Moses. In Strong's, there doesn't appear to be any pronouns present in the original Hebrew - it is all from context. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...1-5516.html#34 Perhaps Doc could check me on this if he gets time?

I'll be away for the Christmas break. Thank you all for your comments to date. I wish you all a Merry Christmas holiday break! I'll reply in a few days time to any responses. Thanks again!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2003, 07:15 AM	#44
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	GD Well, it took a dozen attempts through circuitous writing, but I think finally I understand your position, and I'll have to say, it's a unique one. 1. We have a list of items in Ex. 20. 2. There is no statement in Ex. 20 that these are the "10 Commandments" (copywrite Moses). 3. We have another list of items in Ex. 34:14-26. 4. There is a statement in Ex. 34:28 (two verses away, mind you) that Moses has the official "10 Commandments" (copywrite Moses). 5. But according to you the 10+/- items listed in Ex. 34:14-26 are NOT what was written on the second set of tablets - despite the clear implication (to me, at least) from the biblical text. Thus, the official list contains those items found in Ex. 20, and those items were re-written in Ex. 34:28. And despite the fact that (i) the list in verses 14-26 is physically located next to the statement in verse 28 and (ii) the fact that a number of the items listed in verses 14-26 are on the OFFICIAL 10 Commandments list, the Ex. 34 listing was not included on the official list. OK - Good luck with that Or maybe, just maybe, the occam's razor answer is that we have five different authors/editors trying to harmonize the multiple works all together. In which case, I agree with you that the term "contradiction" is really out of place in this discussion. "Pious fiction" and "goulash" are better terms.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.