Bigfoot

[seeking Christ]

This whole 10 Commandments thing is new to me, as well. It seems very clear to me, and I find the Christian "explanations" on this thread lacking. I'm going to look into this further, and try and find some scholarly opinions on it.

Anywhere the 10 Commandments have been posted in this Country, public works, courtrooms, it has been the 10 I posted. (Deuteronomy 5) I have never understood why those would be in the Ark of the Covenant, and God has given me tremendous revelation on a lot of those very dry details of Moses' tabernalce in the wilderness.

As a child I thought it was the other 10 (Exodus 34) that were on the stone tablets, from my own reading. I have never considered their relevance, being included in the Ark. I was corrected of my "error," and I never gave it a second thought until now.

Just pointing out "scholarly opinions" will surely at least support Deut 5, the question is what supports Ex 34? I go with those who kept the records of the Priests who actually did this stuff. Curious if there are dissenting Rabbinical opinions on this?

 

[seeking Christ]

What went in the Ark is historical. It does not take that deep of a study to find out. Some parts of the Bible are difficult to interpret. This is not one of those parts.

Nothing in the Bible spells this out.

Seriously, you want to rely on Jewish interpretation for various prophesies that supposedly relate to Christ?

You need 40 lashes with a wet noodle. Please engage your brain! Nothing about this Prophesies of Christ. What are you thinking?

They are O.T. prophecies after all.

Sorry but NO. This is the LAW. As in you know, the law and the Prophets? Never heard of that huh?

What is questionable about that particular chapter? It seems awfully clearly laid out to me.

It says nothing about what was in the Ark of the Covenant. In fact, the actual words on the stone tablets aren't recited in Scripture. Again, MANY such OT details aren't included in Scripture, which are mostly just an arrow pointing to a highlight; a placemarker.

If this concept is new to you then the OT is foreign to you, and virtually unexplored.

 

[seeking Christ]

Yes, but since they are in the fringe I put them in the same category as Flat Earthers and other crazies.

This is what happens when scientists pretend to be theologians.

 

[46AND2]

Anywhere the 10 Commandments have been posted in this Country, public works, courtrooms, it has been the 10 I posted. (Deuteronomy 5) I have never understood why those would be in the Ark of the Covenant, and God has given me tremendous revelation on a lot of those very dry details of Moses' tabernalce in the wilderness.

As a child I thought it was the other 10 (Exodus 34) that were on the stone tablets, from my own reading. I have never considered their relevance, being included in the Ark. I was corrected of my "error," and I never gave it a second thought until now.

Just pointing out "scholarly opinions" will surely at least support Deut 5, the question is what supports Ex 34? I go with those who kept the records of the Priests who actually did this stuff. Curious if there are dissenting Rabbinical opinions on this?

I'm not interested in why the tradition has been to use the 10 Commandments we commonly accept. I'm interested in the clear explanation for why the Exodus 34 account should NOT be considered the 10 Commandments, as it seems pretty straightforward. This explanation is necessary, because it does not only conflict with what we traditionally attribute to be the 10 Commandments, it is required to settle a potential contradiction with Deut. 5.

Even if the 10 Commandments are supposed to be the ones we generally hold, we need an explanation for why Exodus 34 says otherwise. It is not sufficient to garner support for Deut 5, alone.

 

[seeking Christ]

Yah, I just got done saying that. So glad you listen so well that you need to turn agreement into argument.

 

[46AND2]

Yah, I just got done saying that. So glad you listen so well that you need to turn agreement into argument.

Well aren't you a bundle of joy.

 

[seeking Christ]

Seriously, do you not see that I had stated pretty much the same thing, and that your statement was framed as an argument to it? Ain't that silly? It's like:

Bob: "That's white."

Tom: "No it isn't, its white."

We both have the same concern, and I'm surprised I've never given it any thought before. I mean, "the big 10" aren't normally challenged. As much debate as there is over how significant they are to Christianity, never have I seen their contents disputed. And its pretty obvious why: Exodus 34 is simply obscure, while Deut 5 is almost entirely objective morality if any such thing exists.

That DOESN'T mean that's what went into the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing in the Bible spells this out.

Really? I wouldn't say that. Google is your friend when you make claims like this, use it first.

You need 40 lashes with a wet noodle. Please engage your brain! Nothing about this Prophesies of Christ. What are you thinking?

I am the one who is thinking here. Your claim of using Jewish sources has consequences. You forgot to think.

Sorry but NO. This is the LAW. As in you know, the law and the Prophets? Never heard of that huh?

You can't follow a subject? I was still talking about the consequences of your thoughtless claim.

It says nothing about what was in the Ark of the Covenant. In fact, the actual words on the stone tablets aren't recited in Scripture. Again, MANY such OT details aren't included in Scripture, which are mostly just an arrow pointing to a highlight; a placemarker.

No, what was put in the Ark of the Covenant is told elsewhere in the Bible. Remember, Google first, make claims later. And yes, Exodus 34 clearly states what was written on the stone tablets. It is extremely clear. Do you need me to quote it for you?

If this concept is new to you then the OT is foreign to you, and virtually unexplored.

It is to laugh.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you went to Jews for advice then you would ultimately throw out the concept of Jesus himself since they don't believe that he fulfilled any significant prophecies.

Ever heard of completed Jews?

Yes, but since they are in the fringe I put them in the same category as Flat Earthers and other crazies.

So you don't consider completed Jews as Jews at all? is that what you're saying?

If not, what if you went to, as you call it, this 'fringe' for advice? would you conclude they, as you put it, "don't believe Jesus fulfilled any significant prophecies"?

Or are you just wrong, period?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't consider completed Jews as Jews at all? is that what you're saying?

If not, what if you went to, as you call it, this 'fringe' for advice? would you conclude they, as you put it, "don't believe Jesus fulfilled any significant prophecies"?

Or are you just wrong, period?

Did I say that? Work on your reading comprehension and try not to use false dichotomies.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what happens when scientists pretend to be theologians.

Ask a scientist here if they believe Israel is the Promised Land.

You'll get everything but a straight answer ... (if they respond at all).

 

[46AND2]

Seriously, do you not see that I had stated pretty much the same thing, and that your statement was framed as an argument to it? Ain't that silly? It's like:

Bob: "That's white."

Tom: "No it isn't, its white."

We both have the same concern, and I'm surprised I've never given it any thought before. I mean, "the big 10" aren't normally challenged. As much debate as there is over how significant they are to Christianity, never have I seen their contents disputed. And its pretty obvious why: Exodus 34 is simply obscure, while Deut 5 is almost entirely objective morality if any such thing exists.

That DOESN'T mean that's what went into the Ark of the Covenant.

Why do you assume I was arguing with you? Would it have helped if I started the post with "yeah, but..." in response to your point about what scholars were likely to say? I just wanted to reiterate why it was important for me to know the explanation, and added the fact that as it stands, it is a contradiction with Deuteronomy...a point hitherto not expressed; at least not explicitly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ask a scientist here if they believe Israel is the Promised Land.

You'll get everything but a straight answer ... (if they respond at all).

No, I don't think it is.

Tired of being wrong yet, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I say that? Work on your reading comprehension and try not to use false dichotomies.

I take it you don't accept Jews for Jesus, either ... right?

In fact, any Jew that gets in the way of the point you made gets relegated to the 'fringe area,' doesn't he?

That way, you can convince yourself you made a legitimate point, can't you?

 

[seeking Christ]

Or are you just wrong, period?

The douchebaggery is strong with this one. Too bad he isn't smart enough to realize he's born ignorant, and will die ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't think it is.

Tired of being wrong yet, AV?

Amazing how quickly you became a scientist, isn't it?

Just to prove me wrong, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad he isn't smart enough to realize he's born ignorant, and will die ignorant.

Ouch! That's my line!

 

[CabVet]

Unless of course, they want money from us; then they're gentle as lambs, aren't they?

What was that commandment again? The 9th? Was that the one that mentioned something about bearing false witness? If you are not bearing false witness, why don't you post some evidence for what you are saying?

Now, I could say the same about pastors, and I would not be bearing false witness. Want me to present the evidence?

 

[CabVet]

Ask a scientist here if they believe Israel is the Promised Land.

You'll get everything but a straight answer ... (if they respond at all).

If it is or not, I do not know. But I would certainly hope the "promise land" (if there is one) would be something better than the harsh desert that Israel is.

 

[seeking Christ]

Would it have helped if I started the post with "yeah, but..." in response to your point

Something like that, sure. Anyway, we both have the same concern. Doesn't happen all that often around here. We should enjoy it!

I just wanted to reiterate why it was important for me to know the explanation, and added the fact that as it stands, it is a contradiction with Deuteronomy...a point hitherto not expressed; at least not explicitly.

No sweat, amigo! I wouldn't go as far as to say the 2 are a contradiction; they're both in the law. About 8 or 9 out of the 10 in Exodus have no meaning whatsoever to most folks in the west, and it could be as simple as "the Christian 10 commandments" are Deut 5, because all but 1 or 2 are relevant to us. There may not be any real claim that those were ever in the Ark.

Now I'm curious about Charleton Heston's movie, if the contents of the stone tablets were ever pictured. Wouldn't it be funny if this all came about from that?