The 10 represents the entire covenant. They are called the "tablets of covenant law" And bound to their covenant. They are placed in the ark of the covenant, again a other covenant marker. You have taken their placement to mean they should be regarded as universal and this meaning is not supported. You've applied interpretation on the uniqnesses of the 10 that simply are not confirmed in scripture. Indeed they have unique aspects (like on tablets, placed in the ark...) that can show they had high value but it does not support they are universal or that they extend outside the covenant they are created in. The Abrahamic covenant and Circumcision are also very unique but you've assigned higher value to the 10 that to the Abrahamic covenant and have done so arbitrary. Scripture does not support your view of assigning value to use the 10 as something more important.
Once again you are making arguments I never made- all of God's Word is inspired and never said anything to the contrary, so again, introducing new arguments and ones I have not made. In God's inspired word there are different laws that serve different purposes which God Word reveals, if we allow It to.
Then both are inspired, and both are authoritive. Neither are more inspired or more authoritive. So why does it matter that one is on stone by the finger of God and the other is by God passing through cut portions of sacrafices as fire? Why take one to be more special than the other? Use whatever language you want to but in practice one is dropped and the other valued in your perspective. Why is this? Isaiah 8:20 certainly should be seen as including them both but you used it to show favour for one and discriminate all others. Where does this rational come from, because scripture doesn't tell us to do this.
Upvote
0