Malachi151

No, no, this is just apologetics. Also, I need to note that IN my prior post I put the wrong chapter in my quote of the 2nd version, I said Exodus 32, and it should be 34.

It says that "scholars" call this the ritual Decalogue, but this is just trying to worm around inerrency issues. It is very clear from the text itself that this is supposed to be the ten commandments, not a separate "ritual" set of commandments. This comes from the two different sources that are part of the Torah, El and Yahweh, or whatever.

This apology is interesting though, I hadn't heard that justification before.

Cege

I'm not sure what the apologetics are meant to be, but it seems that critical examination generally produces one of two theories:

Historical reconstruction (documentary hypothesis)
The commandments in the Ritual Decalogue are expanded upon in the Covenant Code, which occurs prior to it in the Torah, and thus have the impression of being a summary of the important points in the Code. The Covenant Code is believed by most scholars of biblical criticism as having originally been a separate text to the Torah, and thus there is much debate as to the relationship between the Ritual Decalogue and Covenant Code. There are essentially two positions, neither of which is decisively supported, either by evidence, or by number of scholars:

*Either the commandments of the Ritual Decalogue were originally indistinct commandments in the body of a much larger work, such as the Covenant Code, and were selected as being the most important by some process, whether gradual filtering or by an individual,
*Or the Covenant Code represents a later expansion of the Ritual Decalogue, with additional commandments added on, again either by gradual aggregation, or by an individual. - http://www.answers.com/topic/ritual-decalogue

The original "ten commandments" appear to be those in Exodus 34, and were eventually expanded into the 610 laws of the Torah, either by Moses, J, E, P, D, or some combination of those 5 (or more).

Amedeo

The supreme court ordered the stone block with the commandments to be removed from the public place (the court in which a judge had placed it "for decoration," as I head him say on television.)

The Court's argument was that the diplay of the Commandaments in a public place constituted a government establishment of religion (which is contrary to the Constitution). The defense argument was that this is an example of a historic code of laws (and, like any code, it may properly be displayed as a document).

What the defense failed to note is a court is not a museum, and that FOUR of the Commandments are RELIGIOUS DUTIES that Moses imposed on the Israelites out of Egypt [not mankind], and that only 6 are civil duties . Other historic codes are typically secular (civil).

My argument against the display is based on the fact that what should be displayed, especially in an American court of law, is the American laws and the whole Constitution [with the proviso about due process of law, and the bill of Rights]. The Ten Commandments are a foreign Code (whether semi-religious or wholly civil) and has no place in an American court of law, whose business is to judge according to American law. (But the screaming southern Christians, who protested, have, like the Government, betrayed and abandoned the Constitution; so, they would not understand any discourse from the standpoint of the American Republic and American law.)

The Supreme Court decision was right, not on the ground of the undue establishment of religion, but on the tacit ground that I have mentioned, namely that the U.S. Courts have to judge according to American laws and that it is fitting, if not obligatory, to diplay only the American laws. (In the early Roman Republic, the tablets of Roman law were displayed in public, so that everybody would know the courts' principles of judgment and the formal duties of the citizens [1. Si vocat, ito: if you are summoned, go to court. 2.....] It would have been an act of treason to display the laws of the Etruscan kings.)

mojuang

Yahweh seems to acknowledge the institution of slavery such that he casually commands that your slave should not work on the sabbath!!! what morals can we learn from such a god in the present world?

Amedeo

And don't forget not to covet the posseessions of you male neighbor: his wife, ox, male or female slave, and the rest.

There is NO code of morals in the bible. there are order given by a leader like Moses: religious ordinances, and social ordinances.

The God in question is a tribal god that has a contract wih His People. He will operate for the benefit of His people, has no respect for the perennial enemies of israel. Don't confuse this God with the God of the Greek Christianity, who is moral goodness personified [based of philosophical morality], is the God of all men, and shows no favoritisms.

All the gods are made in the mage of their prophets [their makers]. // If you are an ethnologist, you will prize the Bible for a source of information about the customs, beliefs, laws, and attitudes of Neolithic people in the Agricultural-Metallurgical Age.

To learn morals and justice, go to the Greek philosophers and the Roman jurisprudents and Cicero. (Not for nothing is Classical culture suppressed in the educational systems directly or indirectly controlled by the religionists of all sorts: The human spirit has to be kept at the pre-philosophical stage.... at the stage of mythology. This suits tyrants perfectly, as the American church-state brotherhood shows. Theirs is the kingdom of a-moral pre-rational Man.)

John Kesler

Notice, however, what Dr. Heard says is the reason for the term "Ritual Decalogue." The emphasis is mine:

Exodus 34 contains a version of the ten commandments, albeit an inconvenient one for inerrantists and those who wish to display "the" ten commandments on public property.

fromdownunder

Thanks, Steven, I will be more careful in my use of this in the future.

But there are 10 Commandments listed in Exodus 34, some if which mirror those in Exoudus 20 (and Deuteronomy), and they do include the two I quoted.

These Commandments immediately precede Exodus 34:28 (the "these my 10 Commandments" bit), so I think that the basic argument stands.

Regards

Norm

John Kesler

Your argument stands, and the fact that the Exodus-34 commandments are called "the ten commandments" presents a problem for inerrantists, because Exodus 34:1 and Deuteronomy 10:2 state that the second set of commandments would contain the same words as the original set. There is also the matter that in each verse, God promised to do the writing. The Jewish Study Bible, page 191, commentary on Exodus 34:28, reads as follows, my emphasis:

Most inerrantist attempts at harmonization beg the very question under discussion, which is if the Bible is harmonious regarding who wrote the second set of commandments and what these commandments are, but as the JSB was candid enough to admit, the context indicates that contradictions exist.

Cege

Exactly what I was attempting to point out.

The OT actually records 2 different "ten commandments", although the average Christian may only be aware of one of several popular versions of the "Thou shalt.." and "Thou shalt not..." lists.

The versions found (or not) on courthouse walls and church yard-signs are definitely not the "ritual decalogue" found in Ex 34.