rlogan

GD, you have struggled to make an obvious contradiction seem consistent. It is an amazing circumlocution. But it rests on this essential circularity:

The Bible says they are the same. Therefore they are the same. No matter what they say.

There is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. If the Bible said they were green but they appeared white to the human eye - then you would explain that the eye is wrong, or that white is green.

That is why you have such a problem "understanding" points raised elsewhere.

Not intended unkindly, GD. Very common among the faithful.

Doctor X

GD:

Ah:

Actually the answer would be "no." D purposely chages P and both are retained in the Pentateuch. P is also different than J and both are retained in the Pentateuch. It is a contradiction.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

My apologies. Remember, I've argued about this before, and these are objections that have come up before. But perhaps it is overkill at this stage. I'll repost using just one point, and take it from there.

Yes, those premises are correct.

Ex 23:19. I do actually provide this in my opening post. :banghead: I give the location for where you can find the others a number of times as well. :banghead: Tracer refers to the "goat boiling" thing in his reply to you. :banghead:

That you say this suggests that again you haven't really looked at my argument.

Since Moses didn't write on either the first set of stone tablets or the second set, he couldn't have gotten them wrong.

What do you think my posts have been about??? :banghead: :banghead: But yes, that is indeed what I am arguing.

I'm sorry, but "please re-read my posts" seems to be the most pertinent answer at this stage.

But I'll focus on one point below, and re-introduce my points if/when required.

GakuseiDon

To look at the issue "Are the 10 Commandments on the first set of stone tablets the same as the ones on the second set of stone tablets?", I'll start by focusing on one point.

If you disagree with this point, please read my post with the 10 points just above BEFORE replying, as I think that most objections are answered by those 10 points.

I should add that most contradictionalists agree with me once they've examined the evidence that I've presented. The evidence speaks for itself. The hardest part is getting the evidence looked at!

OK, to start the ball rolling:

Does the Bible say that what is on the first set of stone tablets is the same as what is on the second set?

Yes!

In Deut 10:4 "And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them to me."

Now, this can only be a reference to Ex 20.

So here we have proof that:

(1) God did the writing.
(2) God wrote the same things on both sets of stone tablets.
(3) The contents were Ex 20.

If you think this passage contradicts an earlier one, please give me references - but, please read my 10 point post above before replying.

GakuseiDon

Not a problem, rlogan. I understand where you are coming from.

You know, I only became a theist a few years ago. Back then, I'd always thought the Bible was filled with contradictions and inconsistancies. Even after becoming a theist, I still thought that.

But then I started checking these things out for myself, and I was absolutely shocked to find that this wasn't the case. I'm not an inerrantist, and I do recognise that there are contradictions and inconsistancies in the Bible, but it is amazing to me the reactions of people when discussing this issue. It's a real eye-opener.

So, in short: yes, I freely admit that my beliefs may be blinding me to the truth of the matter. There is definitely a mote in my eye.

Kosh

The problem with this is that you can't prove that the author of Deut and Ex 34 are one and the same. Although the fundy/literalist will say that Moses wrote them all, we know better thanks to biblical scholarship ("If he was dying, he wouldn't have written 'aaaaaaahhhhh', he would have just died!" - Monty Python

Therefore, you can't validate what the author of Ex 34 meant to say by using another authore from Deut 10!

This is probably news to you, but G*d didn't write the Bible...

spin

Hey dude, what makes you think that? Just because he used an instrument?


spin

(tongue firmly in cheek)

GakuseiDon

True enough. It is my opening point, 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.

But you are right, Ex 34 needs to stand on its own. If it clearly states that Moses wrote the commands in Ex 34 on the stone tablets, then it can only be a contradiction to Deut.

My next points:

(1) God promises to write what was on the 1st set of tablet on the 2nd set (Ex 34:1)
(2) God writes on the 2nd set (Ex 34:28) "the 10 Commandments".
(3) God asks Moses to write down Ex 34:10-26.

You can see here that (1) God said He'll write something ("what was on the first stones"), (2) Moses is asked to write something ("the covenant").

So we have: Moses had written the covenant down before in the Book of the Covenant, and God wrote the 10 Commandments on the stone tablets before, AND God asks Moses to write down the covenant again, AND God promises to write the 10 Commandments again (the same that were on the first set).

Now, if this is Moses writing down Ex 34 on the tablets, it suddenly contradicts Deut 10, Ex 34:1, and the precedent set earlier in Exodus.

If this is God writing the original commandments, and Moses writing down Ex 34 elsewhere, then all the contradictions disappear, and it is consistent with the precedent earlier.

The sticking point seems to be that Ex 34:28 says: "And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments". Doesn't this imply that the covenant is only the Ten Commandments, and the covenant is what God just said in Ex 34? After all, that is what it says!

I gave the example of Shakespeare before: I wrote on the cards the words of Shakespeare: "to be or not to be" But this doesn't mean that these are the only words of Shakespeare.

If you reread Ex 34 keeping in mind that Moses is writing some of the commands from Ex 23 & 24 as a symbol of the renewal of the earlier covenant (instead of a new set of 10 Commandments), then the whole thing is consistent within itself and with the other passages.

Doctor X

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!

In J that damn things never get destroyed so--from the J writer's perspective--there are no "new" tablets. Of course, J did not expect to be shoved in a book with E and pawed over by P and interpreted by D! This follows for the rest.

Thus, GD, this:

is not true according to the texts. No "10 Commandments." YHWH gives the J version to Moses. P makes sure his hero Aaron is present for his version--which is different. In D, Moses is doing the "Castle ARrrrrgggg" and recites them to the Israelites--as if they forgot!--but changes them!

We artificially miss all of the other commandments such as not boiling kids in mother's milk and child sacrifice 'n all.

Worst . . . add archaeology . . . we do not even have an Exodus!

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!

--J.D.

rlogan

We've done it. Created a swirling vortex of confusion and despair.

Let's take three different perspectives.

1) A person of ordinary intelligence, without preconceptions about either religion or history of Pentateuch authorship is given two lists. The lists have different words on them. The person is asked: are these lists the same? The person says "no". When presented with the assertion that the lists are the same the person says "I disagree".

2) The erudite biblical scholar is asked to give a dissertation on two traditions becoming merged into one document in the hands of the redactor. The scholar is asked "are these lists the same". The scholar, ever keen on parsimony answers: "sort of, insamuch as they are not the same but merged into one that is really two forms of one thing that is the same thing with differences."

3) The erstwhile believer of the Moses authorship variety brings to bear the principle of interpretation. Here, we have the versitile tool of agglomoration, amalgamation, and circumlocution. The lists are the same.