Revisiting the Ten Commandments.

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by duane, Apr 22, 2016.


Tags:
  1. duane

    duane Monkey++

    If this has been discussed before, please bring the previous discussion up. I don't do well with computers.
    The Ten Commandments are not only relevant, but in these times of social "change" a solid foundation to order your life upon. You don't have to be a Christian to use these simple guides as a way of life and many other groups have developed similar guidelines. While I am not trained in the religious field and don't dream of speaking as an authority, these are some of my takes on the commandments and how they interact in my daily life. I would love to hear what others think.

    1. Thou shall have no other gods before me.

    That would seem to indicate that there are some real foundations in our daily life and that the government, educational system, local NAACP, gay and lesbian alliance, etc don't have the right to force us to believe in this months morality of choice. In my mind God has set forth a way to live and many of our institutions wish to replace that way and take his place. We may have to conform to some aspects of their rules, but we don't have to believe them correct or allow them to teach our children that their beliefs are correct.

    2. Thou shalt not make any graven images .

    That would seem to mean that there are some real truths in life and that perhaps "Dancing with the stars" or getting that new car aren't the most important things in life. In my mind the image isn't the problem, letting it dominate your life is. We seem to live in a culture where instant gratification is all that counts and that heroin, pop culture, new car, etc are acceptable short solutions.
     
    john316 and Minuteman like this.
  2. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Like maybe the "God of Environmentalism" or the "God of Materialism"
     
  3. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of commandments which the Bible describes as having been given to the Israelites by God at biblical Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are listed twice in the Hebrew Bible, first at Exodus 20:1–17, and then at Deuteronomy 5:4–21. Both versions state that God inscribed them on two stone tablets, which he gave to Moses. According to New Testament writers, the Ten Commandments are clearly attributed to Moses (Mark 7:10, see also John 7:19).

    Modern scholarship has found likely influences in Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and treaties, but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them.

    The commandments include instructions to worship only God, to honour parents, and to keep the sabbath; as well as prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and coveting. Different religious groups follow different traditions for interpreting and numbering them.

    Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    chelloveck and Tikka like this.
  4. Meat

    Meat Monkey+

    I'd rather listen to what Confucious say. For example.....:D
     
    Ganado likes this.
  5. RightHand

    RightHand Pioneer in a New World Moderator Founding Member

    chelloveck and Ganado like this.
  6. Legion489

    Legion489 Shining the Light of Truth

    Ten rules to live by written on two stone tablets that one man could carry....hmmmm, the US gov't so-called (most are statutes) "laws"/treaties/rules/regs, in fine (tiny) print, is some 3984 feet long (right around 2 miles or so, depending on what Obummer signed in the middle of the night of course, add a few football fields every day or so) in 8 1/2" x 11" bound form. Add the tax code, Obummer care (you ever look up long that is printed form? AND you better know what is in it if you ever get sick!), interpreting all of this in the courts, law books, various other gov't publications and the total could go around the world at least once at the equator. Throw in the state statutes, "laws"/treaties/rules/regs and you are all the way around a second time. Well of course the Courts can't allow the 10 Commandments any where near the courts, the part about don't lie would ban politicians/lawyers right off, the rest wouldn't be welcome either. Don't steal? The gov't wouldn't be able to tax! No Gods be Me? Is nothing sacred? How could they worship money/power/etc.? Well I for one don't see how don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, be nice could ever fly.
     
  7. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Moderator Moderator Site Supporter++

    I tell me kids to get right with God quite often. We left the church but believe in the Bible. The kids and I discussed this. The Ten Commandments are good rules to live by. Nice guideline to being a decent person.
     
    Tikka likes this.
  8. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Thankyou Right Hand, How did I ever miss that little gem??

    I prefer suggestion to commandments, particularly when most of the commandments cited have no more authority in contemporary secular law, than Sharia imperatives do, or ought to do. The commandments are probably better described as the 10 Social Self Disciplines. Apart from injunctions against Murder, stealing, perjury, the other seven are often honoured in the breach, rather than in the observance, even by theists. I couldn't care less which of the optional 7 of those disciplines one chooses to ignore; ignoring one of the compulsory three disciplines ( murder, stealing and perjury) will see you in the slammer, reflecting on the wisdom of ignoring it.

    Here is an alternative critique of the Decalogue The New Commandments


    The Roman Catholic Church, blithely skates around the "though shalt not create graven images" schtick,

    Decalogue: Ten Commandments

    it is interesting how different Christian traditions have used textual exploits to harmonise scriptural and doctrinal incompatibilities or inconsistencies.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2016
  9. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    How the Ten Commandments affected the views of America's leaders:

    "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion" - John Adams, Nov. 4, 1816, letter to Thomas Jefferson.

    "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." - Harry S Truman, Feb. 15, 1950, Attorney General's Conference.

    References to the Ten Commandments in court cases:

    "The Ten Commandments have had an immeasurable effect on Anglo-American legal development" - U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson , W.D. Va. (1983)

    "It is equally undeniable ...that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." - U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)

    While it is not accurate to claim our constitution and laws were "based" on the Ten Commandments, it is quite obvious that our founding fathers and the nation they created were influenced by them.
     
  10. TailorMadeHell

    TailorMadeHell Lurking Shadow Creature

    As long as people read them with open minds. For example Thou shall not kill. Most read it as no killing for whatever reason. That means people out of anger or self-defense and could include bugs or animals. The better translation refers to murder. That's how I and many others see it. Some people wouldn't believe that if Jesus himself told them the real meaning. Some are stuck in their own weird ideas of what it and the others mean. Religion is not a universal language for sure. Ten people could listen to the same preacher and take away ten different meanings.
     
    bmtm09 and chelloveck like this.
  11. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Added to that, that 10 different preachers, take several conflicting passages from several different books, from books written by several different authors, at several different times and places for different purposes, all from the one sacred anthology.....It is not surprising that some people and preachers have the wriggle room to cherry pick and selectively quote that which suits and serves their purpose best. In Christianity, Islam and a number of other book reliant faiths (Mormonism come to mind), there is a whole industry of hermeneutics and apologetics, that try and harmonise apparent textual inconsistencies and disagreements.

    It is little wonder, that even ten apparently straightforward, sacred strictures can be so differently interpreted by so many different people.
     
    TailorMadeHell likes this.
  12. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    There isn't any part of the 10 Commandments I disagree with. IMO, they are good rules to live by.

    @TailorMadeHell
    Exodus 20:2-17
    You shall not murder.
    Deuteronomy 5:6-21
    You shall not murder.
    10 Commandments List

    Murder is different than killing.
     
    Motomom34 and TailorMadeHell like this.
  13. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of commandments which the Bible describes as having been given to the Israelites

    Note it does not say 'given to christians' Christianity incorporated Jewish law
     
    Tikka likes this.
  14. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    As Christians didn't exist at the time. that would have been difficult. ;)

    The whole Old Testament was written before Christianity existed. Yet, Christians adopted the laws God gave to the Jews.

    Essentially, Christians and Jews get along with each other. Unlike some Religions who have been killing each other since 632 AD.
     
    Ganado likes this.
  15. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Ahem *choke, choke, choke*....this obviously explains the non existent, non persistent anti Semitic antipathy shown to Jews by Christians over the aeons, from the time Jews rejected Christian evangelism of the Christ as being the Messiah, allegedly prophesised in the Tanakh. It also explains why Muslims didn't provide sanctuary to Jews in Spain from Christian persecution; until the Reconquista caused a further Jewish diaspora, in a long line of pogroms and diasporas caused by Christian persecutions up to the mid 20th century Nazi Holocaust.....thank you Martin Luther, for perpetuating the "Biblical" anti Semitic "Blood Libel" of Jewish responsibility for Jesus Christ's death.

    Any semblance of Christians getting on with Jews is largely, among other things, a relatively recent phenomenon, subsequent to the establishment of the Israeli State, post WW2 Middle Eastern realpolitik, and the belief in the mind of some evangelical Christians, that contemporary Israelite Jewry, are an essential component of the second coming of Christ.

    I do like the allusion to Islam, in the referenced 632CE date. It ignores absolutely that Christian persecution of other Christians did not happen at all before, or after that time at all. Christian heretics definitely weren't ever burnt at the stake by other Christians, The Crusades against the Cathars and Hussites never happened, and the wars of the Reformation and Counter Reformation, had absolutely nothing to do with Christians killing each other for, among other things, disagreements over doctrinal minutiae.

    Evidence of Christians and Jews getting along with each other, at least in the USA, is down to the US Constitution's 1st Amendment, the secular nature of US Government, and the valiant efforts of some Americans to maintain the separation of Church and State.

    In all of this, it would seem that the "10 Commandments" have provided scant influence in moderating Christian persecution of Christians, let alone Christian persecution of Jews and Muslims.

    Edit: People who worship in glass cathedrals shouldn't be throwing censers at mosques, synagogues, or temples. ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2016
  16. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    "Note it does not say 'given to Christians' Christianity incorporated Jewish law"

    "The whole Old Testament was written before Christianity existed. Yet, Christians adopted the laws God gave to the Jews."

    Neither one of those statements are correct. It is a common mistake but a very relevant one.
    All Israelites are Hebrews
    All Judahites are Israelites
    But, not ALL Israelites are Judahites
    And in the modern context, not all Jews are Judahites or Israelites or Hebrews

    "The term Hebrew is first used in the scriptures to refer to Abraham (Genesis 14:13). Then it is used of Joseph (Genesis 39:14,17) and the other descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 40:15; 43:32). It is uncertain why Abraham is called ~'the Hebrew." Some have suggested that the word Hebrew comes from a word meaning 'on the other side" or "to cross over" and alludes to Abraham leaving Ur and crossing the Euphrates River. Furthermore, no special reason is given in the scriptures for calling the nation that came from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, Hebrews. The term does, however, identify the nation as descendants of Abraham."
    "The name of Jacob, the son of Isaac (Genesis 25:26) who was the promised son of Abraham (Genesis 17:19), was changed to Israel when he wrestled with a man of God (Genesis 32:28). Hence, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) made up the nation of Israel and were sometimes called Israelites (Exodus 9:7). When the nation divided, the ten northern tribes arrogated to themselves the name Israel, and the two southern tribes became known as Judah. Both nations were taken captive; Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians and Judah was later taken captive by the Babylonians. When the Babylonian captivity ended, exiles of both nations- Israel and Judah- returned to their homeland and were again united under the designation of Israel."

    "IT will no doubt come as something of a surprise to most Christians to find that the literal word ‘JEW’ does not appear in the entire original text of the Bible, neither the Old nor the New Testaments. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament uses the word ‘Yehudim’, meaning ‘Judahite’. The original Greek of the New Testament uses the word ‘Ioudaios’, meaning ‘Judean’.

    These original words were used in the earlier translations of our Bible, and only seem to have been replaced by the word ‘Jew’ in fairly relatively recent times.

    Dr Young, in his ‘Analytical Concordance of the Bible’says of the word ‘Jew’;

    “A descendant of Judah. Strictly speaking, the name is only appropriate to the subjects of the kingdom of the two tribes after the separation of the ten tribes.”

    I cannot too strongly emphasize that point. The word ‘Jew’, even as it is presently used in the Bible, was only ever applicable to the southern House of Judah, and in fact, only to a small portion of even that section of the overall people of Israel. The Northern House of Israel was NEVER referred to as ‘Jews.’ In fact, the major portion of the House of Judah was also NEVER referred to as ‘Jews.’

    The word ‘Jew’ was only ever used in the Bible, and then only by modern translators, in regard to the descendants of the portion of the Southern House of Judah who returned from the Babylonian captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah. The word could not have been applied to the balance of the House of Judah, nor to the Northern House of Israel, for the simple reason that they were not there! These people, who formed the major part of Israel, were in captivity to the north-west of Palestine, and included the whole of the northern ten tribes which had been previously taken into captivity, together with the major section of the southern two tribes who had subsequently been taken captive into the same regions long before the Babylonian captivity. The Apostle James was fully aware of this fact, because he addressed his epistle to, “The TWELVE tribes scattered abroad.”

    It is absolutely essential for a correct understanding of the Bible that we acknowledge the difference between “The Hebrews” “The House of Israel,” “The House of Judah,” and “The Jews.”"

    Some people would ask "What difference does it make?" It makes a huge difference.
    The prophets displayed meticulous care in their address to “The House of Israel”, “The House of Judah”, and “The inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Jews.”

    To apply to one House a prophecy which refers to the other, only confuses both the message and its understanding.

    "But in regard to the “Jews”, it is essential to note that this name is used in the New Testament of those who resided in the portion of Palestine called Idumea. Thus they were, in the main, the Idumeans. It is also interesting to note that not once did our Lord ever have a good word for these people. On the contrary, He constantly referred to them as His greatest enemies.

    Thus we have two distinct sections within the people of Christ’s day referred to as ‘Jews.’ There were the Galileans, who were mainly from the tribe of Benjamin (The ‘Light-bearing’ Tribe). It was from this section of people from whom came all of the disciples except Judas. These were the GOOD FIGS referred to in the 24th. chapter of Jeremiah. Most of the true descendants of Israel of the Babylonian captivity were to be found in this group. But there were also the Idumeans, comprising the ‘mixed multitude’ who came back with the others from Babylon. These also mixed with the people of the land who were NOT Israelites, and constituted the BAD figs of Jeremiah’s prophecy. It was these people who were claiming to be God’s people, and whom our Lord Jesus Christ accused of being ‘Children of their father the devil.’"
    .
    The religion of the Israelites is more properly termed "Hebrewism" or actually more accurately "Yahwism." The religion of what has become known as Judaism came out of the Babylonian captivity when the remnants of the nation of Judah were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar. The people adopted a mixture of Babylonian mysticism and true Yahwism. The Talmud was written during this time and is the predominate text governing the life and religion of this sect which has evolved into today's Talmudic Judaism.

    They're adherents returned with the exiles to Judea and formed a large portion of those living there at the time of Christ. It is they who clamored for his execution and them who are referred to by Christ himself as "The synagogue of Satan".

    It is they whom Paul says "Those who call themselves Jews (Yehudim, descendants of the tribe of Judah) but are not".

    The presence of the Ten Commandments and other Yahwism traditions in modern Christianity was not through adoption but rather through direct inheritance. The Bible says that the descendants of Abraham, and the inheritors of the covenant are all who accept the Gospel of Christ. Christians are "grafted" into the nation of Israel and are "joint heirs with Christ" to the promises and covenants God made with the early Israelites.

    The supposed contradictions in scripture come not from an error in the texts but in the English version of it. As I have explained before the modern English language Bible is not a word for word translation of ancient scripture. It is a "transliteration". Meaning that a monk who could read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek would read a passage and attempt to put into English a summary of what was being presented. This has led to many "errors" in the English version. The most well know and aforementioned instance of "Thou shalt not kill".

    In the original Hebrew the word, as is common in that and many other ancient languages, has a much wider meaning than is possible with a one word translation. It largely depends on context. The original word, and I don't have my Strong's Concordance to hand, but the word means literally to kill on purpose. And even that is a very oversimplified translation. But a more accurate one word translation is murder. So their is no interpretation of the verse, it simply needs to be put into English correctly. Which it wasn't.

    Another lesser known instance of this error, and another supposed Biblical contradiction, comes from the Catholic tradition, later carried into the Protestant churches, of a "Good Friday" and a Sunday morning resurrection.

    This results not from a mistranslation/transliteration of the text but rather from an ignorance of Yahwism and it's customs and practice.

    The Friday crucifixion comes from the text that says that the family of Christ went to Pilate to ask that his body be taken from the cross before sunset as it was the start of the Sabbath. It was against their religion to leave a dead corpse visible on the Sabbath. Thus the soldiers were commanded to break the legs of the two thieves to hasten their death. But when they came to Christ they found he was already dead. Fulfilling the prophecy that none of his bones would be broken. This was about 3 pm. His body was taken down and placed in the tomb. But as it was close to the start of the Sabbath there was not time to properly anoint and prepare the body as per their custom. So the two women returned, traditionally on Sunday morning, to complete this task and found the tomb empty.

    The problem here is that first, prophecy tells us that he would lay in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. Anyone can count that Friday to Sunday is not 3 days. There have been many vain attempts made to reconcile this. Contrary to anywhere else in scripture some claim that one night, one day, and one night constitute the 3 "days". This is what I call forcing a round peg into a square hole. You can make it fit but it leaves a lot of gaps around the edges.

    The second problem is that it was Roman law that no one could be declared officially dead until they had laid in a tomb for 3 days. The medical expertise at the time undoubtedly resulted in many people presumed dead that awoke a day or two later. So a person who wasn't quite dead when laid in a tomb for 3 days and nights would most certainly be "officially" dead at the end of the period.

    With the fear that his followers would steal the body, Pilate ordered soldiers to guard the tomb, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have been allowed access until the full 3 day period was up.

    So where did the Friday crucifixion come from? The monks transliterating the scriptures failed to realize that under Mosaic law there are 7 Holy Feast days per year whose observation was mandatory. The Feast days were to be considered a sacred Sabbath day. So when a feast day occurred on a day other than the traditional weekly Saturday Sabbath it was an extra Sabbath for that week.

    When Christ was crucified in the year 4 AD in the month of Nisan, the Passover Holy Feast/Sabbath day occurred on the 9th, beginning on Wednesday at sunset. This is also stated by the first century historian Josephus. Christ was crucified on Wednesday afternoon, his body taken from the cross just before sunset, the start of the special Passover Sabbath, and laid in the tomb.

    The women would have came to the tomb to anoint his body sometime after sunset on Saturday night, after the end of the weekly Sabbath and after the required 3 day waiting period proscribed by Roman law. So just as was prophesied he lay in the tomb a full 3 days and 3 nights.

    It is speculation but it is only logical that the women would have wanted to complete the task as soon as was possible. When they arrived they found the soldiers asleep and the tomb empty. It is logical that this was early on Saturday night, not Sunday morning. This view is reinforced by the account that they ran to tell the disciples an found them gathered together in a room, possibly having their evening meal.

    The "Good Friday" tradition simply does not reconcile with scripture and the Easter morning, sunrise story is an obvious adaption of the traditional Roman, pagan tradition of a sunrise service to honor Ishtar (pronounced Easter) the goddess of fertility. When Constantine declared Christianity the official Roman religion and all of the traditional pagan rites and holly days were "Christianized".

    So much of what we think we know of scripture is based on false translations and misunderstood traditions. Such is the case of Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, and Christians.

    The Ten Commandments, as everything in scripture was not "adopted" by Christians, it was inherited. And it was not given to the "Jews" it was given to the followers of Yahweh in which the Christians of the world are the lineage of.
     
    oldawg, Ganado, kellory and 1 other person like this.
  17. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    @Minuteman
    That was an excellent read, thank you.
     
    Minuteman likes this.
  18. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    Well............ couple of things here........ that might be worth lookin at......

    we need to remember that these were given to a people that were slaves......

    a free person has a very different view of the world........ then a slave....

    I have heard it said it is very difficult to change a slave into a free person... has to do with the mind set?

    and here is an odd thing....

    if you go back to the original and speak to a rabi you will be told the word is MURDER and not kill...

    think I recall someone saying kill, at the time of the creation of the KJV, was a synonym for murder but?

    and the word slay had a meaning of taking life while in mortal combat.........
     
  19. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    The original languages were so nuanced that it is nearly impossible to get a true representation in English that does justice to the original. I once heard a preacher who read passages from a Hebrew Bible and in English. The difference was amazing, it was such a richer, fuller recitation. Much more descriptive, much more nuanced. But he admitted that it still didn't do justice to the original.
     
  20. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    slavery has to do with mind set .... pfft it has to do with upbringing (which might be similar in that the mind is set an an early age) but mind set is not intrinsic to slavery.

    Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text: George M. Lamsa's Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta: George M. Lamsa: 9780060649234: Amazon.com: Books
    Still the most accurate version of the bible I have ever found

    George Lamsa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George M. Lamsa (Syriac: ܓܝܘܪܓܝܣ ܠܡܣܐ‎) (August 5, 1892 – September 22, 1975) was an Assyrian[1] author. He was born in Mar Bishu in what is now the extreme east of Turkey. A native Aramaic speaker, he translated the Aramaic Peshitta (literally "straight, simple") Old and New Testaments into English.
     
    chelloveck likes this.
  1. Motomom34
  2. GhostX
  3. OldDude49
  4. OldDude49
  5. Yard Dart
  6. Brokor
  7. Minuteman
  8. chelloveck
  9. Mindgrinder
  10. RightHand
  11. Gopherman
  12. hillbill
  13. Gopherman
  14. cdnboy66
  15. Minuteman
  16. Seacowboys
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7