Jayman

In 12:33 he tells his disciples to love their neighbors as themselves. That is a loving person.

This is hyperbole. It means that Jesus' disciples must love him more than their families. Matthew 10:37 does not use such harsh language but makes the same point. "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." You can see this element of choice in Matthew 6:24 as well where Jesus says, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." The point is that God should be chosen over money since it is obvious that you could love God and money at the same time. It's a question of preference. Also note how in Genesis 29:30 it is stated that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. But in the very next verse it is said that Leah was hated. As the following link states, this was a cultural phenomenon.

<a href="http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=014&verse=026" target="_blank">http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=014&verse=026</a>

Berean

Perhaps so. My previous experience with atheist forums is at about.com, where the various posters to the A/A forum have a habit of heavy sarcasm (if not outright ridicule). In addition, I have a very low tolerance for poor reading of texts (of any kind) and easily show frustration as a result. Consequently, having discerned such poor readings here and noting your truck comment I rode roughshod over it.

As for you being uninspired, by that I meant anyone not inhabited by the Holy Spirit (that being the Biblical requirement for the understanding of spiritual concepts). By definition an atheist is such, and this was not intended as an insult.

All that aside, demonstrate to me where my logic fails. To do so, you need to show at least the following:

1. That in verse 1 God meant something other than the original Ten Commandments when He said "the words that were in the first tables".
2. That telling Moses to write something down (v.27) is the same as saying He's going to write something Himself (v.1).
3. That Moses, not God, is the antecedent of "he" in the second sentence of verse 28, both grammatically and contextually.
4. Following from #3, that this is the correct statement, and not Deuteronomy 10:4, which unequivocally says that God was the scribe the second time.
5. That the list of commands in vv.12-26 adds up to ten (I can argue that there's at least 11 or 12).
6. That my explanation of the need to repeat the ritual commands from chapter 23 does not make sense.

Seems like a tough exegetical task to me.

Vorkosigan

In 12:33 he tells his disciples to love their neighbors as themselves. That is a loving person.

Lots of thinkers have put forth this commandment. Confucius for example, but no one has described him as a "loving person" -- a great humanist, certainly, but not a loving person. This commandment has nothing to do with love. I have never thought of Jesus as a loving person; loving people do not condemn their enemies to hell, and spout crap like "Woe to Bethsaida!" Nor do they obsess about the end of the world.

Vorkosigan

Kosh

As you can see from just these two links (a search on Exodus 34 got me 20,000 results, didn't have time to look at them all), it's not so cut and dry. It can't just be attributed to uninspired heathens that can't parse a paragraph. Esp. note that religioustolerance.org link. These people are very thorough on their research, and if it was such a "non-issue", it wouldn't have been mentioned, or at least dismissed with a solid argument....

<a href="http://hometown.aol.com/gameover876/bible_creationism.html" target="_blank">commentary on Exodus 34</a>

<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c2.htm" target="_blank">From Religious Tolerance</a>

Berean

Actually, when discussing a text of any kind, it always comes down to a primary reading of the text itself. Then comes the usage of reference sources. Third party commentary or arguments should only be brought in at a later point to confirm or deny conclusions arrived at from one's own investigation. This is basic methodology.

In any event, the two web sites cited (and let's face it, with a few rare exceptions, web sites are a very poor substitute for proper research) hardly provide anything of value to this issue. Neither gives a cogent argument as to why the Exodus 34 list should be considered the Ten Commandments (Religious Tolerance says nothing about it at all other than that it should be so considered). The other merely links through to another skeptical site that uses Dennis McKinsey and an outdated Britannica as sources, of which the former is utterly unreliable and the latter suspect (I don't have access to the full article in the current Britannica, but it appears to consider only the Exodus 20 and the Deuteronomy versions of the Decalogue. My copy of Encarta does the same, but encyclopaedias are not the best sources anyway). Among the cites in the first link though was an interesting citation of the normally moronic Bernard Katz (e.g. The Ways of an Atheist) who speaks of Exodus 34 as the "Ritual List", which is getting close to the heart of the matter.

The issue remains, however: given all the components of the chapter, how can you argue that what was written on the new tablets and here entitled the Ten Commandments was not the same as what was written on the first set?

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Berean ]</p>

Kosh

the point of that post was not to try and argue your questions, but to point out to you that it's not just us stupid heathens that can't parse the text.

rodahi

rodahi:
If you will read Mark's narrative, you will find that Jesus is NOT a loving person. Count the number of times he uses the word "love."


Jayman:
In 12:33 he tells his disciples to love their neighbors as themselves. That is a loving person.

I don't think you have read Mark's narrative. If you had, you would know that Jesus does not speak in 12:33. It is a scribe who speaks. Further, if you had read Mark, you would know that Jesus mentions love of one's neighbor ONLY ONCE (12:31) in the 16 chapters of text and when he does he parrots Leviticus 19:18. A small, Jewish school boy could have done the same.

ishalon

...did you know that most of us unbelievers were once inhabited by the Holy Spirit?

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Berean:


Actually, when discussing a text of any kind, it always comes down to a primary reading of the text itself. Then comes the usage of reference sources. Third party commentary or arguments should only be brought in at a later point to confirm or deny conclusions arrived at from one's own investigation. This is basic methodology.


Great! Let's read the text (NLT):

10The LORD replied, "All right. This is the covenant I am going to make with you. I will perform wonders that have never been done before anywhere in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people around you will see the power of the LORD--the awesome power I will display through you. 11Your responsibility is to obey all the commands I am giving you today. Then I will surely drive out all those who stand in your way--the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.
12"Be very careful never to make treaties with the people in the land where you are going. If you do, you soon will be following their evil ways. 13Instead, you must break down their pagan altars, smash the sacred pillars they worship, and cut down their carved images. 14You must worship no other gods, but only the LORD, for he is a God who is passionate about his relationship with you.
15"Do not make treaties of any kind with the people living in the land. They are spiritual prostitutes, committing adultery against me by sacrificing to their gods. If you make peace with them, they will invite you to go with them to worship their gods, and you are likely to do it. 16And you will accept their daughters, who worship other gods, as wives for your sons. Then they will cause your sons to commit adultery against me by worshiping other gods. 17You must make no gods for yourselves at all.
18"Be sure to celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days, just as I instructed you, at the appointed time each year in early spring,[1] for that was when you left Egypt.
19"Every firstborn male belongs to me--of both cattle and sheep. 20A firstborn male donkey may be redeemed from the LORD by presenting a lamb in its place. But if you decide not to make the exchange, you must kill the donkey by breaking its neck. However, you must redeem every firstborn son. No one is allowed to appear before me without a gift.
21"Six days are set aside for work, but on the Sabbath day you must rest, even during the seasons of plowing and harvest. 22And you must remember to celebrate the Festival of Harvest[2] with the first crop of the wheat harvest, and celebrate the Festival of the Final Harvest[3] at the end of the harvest season. 23Three times each year all the men of Israel must appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24No one will attack and conquer your land when you go to appear before the LORD your God those three times each year. I will drive out the nations that stand in your way and will enlarge your boundaries.
25"You must not offer bread made with yeast as a sacrifice to me. And none of the meat of the Passover lamb may be kept over until the following morning. 26You must bring the best of the first of each year's crop to the house of the LORD your God.
"You must not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."
27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel."
28Moses was up on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he neither ate nor drank. At that time he wrote the terms of the covenant--the Ten Commandments--on the stone tablets.[/b]

They are pretty garbled. How are Ten to be reconstructed from here?

The issue remains, however: given all the components of the chapter, how can you argue that what was written on the new tablets and here entitled the Ten Commandments was not the same as what was written on the first set?

You solved this problem yourself. The Ten here are what was written on the first set

Ex 34:1 The Lord said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

&lt;shrug&gt; Therefore 34 clearly says that one of the Ten Commandments is not to boil a kid in its mother's milk. So that's what we should be displaying in the courthouse. But I am sure you have another interpretation....

Vorkosigan

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Kosh

My mother used to have this comic of Moses. He was standing there with two tablets, and then a pile of tablets off to his side. THe caption read:

"These are the 10 commandments. Those are the government guidelines that go with them..."

Maybe this is what 34 was talking about?

Michael, are you SURE the translator of your version was filled with the holy spirit?

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>