The 10 Commandments

[BigRob]

Aren't there 600 some commandments, here and there? Where does it say not to eat pork, for example?

A lot of the "laws" come from the Torah, such as the Book of Deuteronomy or Leviticus for example.

 

[BigRob]

If we would not kill each other, that would put an end to war. Humanity couldn't let that happen. What would humanity do for amusement, if they weren't busy killing each over petty differences?

I think it is also important to ask for what people were the 10 commandments given. There are many cases in the Bible were God Himself orders the complete destruction of people, cities, and the ground that they lived on to ensure they would not come back.

So, would you argue that the 10 commandments were written for everyone, or just the the "chosen" people? Also, could they have been written for only a few and then interpreted later to be for everyone as the Church expanded much later.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hypothetical question:
Let us say for the sake of argument that the existence of a supreme being were a scientific accepted fact. Given that, what scientific evidence exists that the supreme being requires any acknowledgment?

The existence of a Bible, Koran, Torah, Thoughts of Mao, etc., is not evidence. They are just volumes of ancient lore.

In other words, the existence of a creator would not necessarily be defacto justification of any organized religion

Disagreements?

Nope, full agreement. Even if we knew for a fact that a Creator/God existed we still currently have no proof or even evidence of what that entity needs/wants/desires/or get pissed off about.

 

[Dr.Who]

It was the 6th, not the 10th, to which I refered and in my old Bibles it says, "Thou shalt not kill" and most of the public versions of if more than 20 years old are "kill" instead of the new version which uses the word "murder". This is just the latest revision to a book that has been revises endlessly since it was voted into existence at the Council of Nicea--where it should be noted that they had huge fights about whether Jesus was devine, and this 325 years after His death. Christianity is based on myth and has no proof of it's claim to divine origin.

The original Constitution is behind a glass case in a museum somewhere. If I go to the corner store and buy a copy no matter how many changes I make to it the original remains unchanged. If I translate it into french and then change the copies of the translation the original still remains unchanged.

The KJV and the NIV and the NASV are all versions that are translations of the original. The fact that they are different from each other tells us nothing about whether or not the original has been changed.

That the KJV translates the Hebrew word as kill and the NIV translates it as murder in no way means that the original existed as two sources one saying murder and one saying kill.

The original Old Testament was canonized before the 1st century and as far as we know there are not two disagreeing Old Testaments just like there are not two disagreeing Constitutions.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all to say that the canon of the OT was changed at all in any way. Sure we know that there are many different versions but that in no way means that the original was changed.

 

[Dr.Who]

What language was used in Israel in the 6th or 7th century BC? I suppose that would be the original text. There obviously have been many translations of the original text over the years.

Prior to that, there is no recorded text, it was all word of mouth.

The text itself states that it was written first hand from the mouth of Moses and was not an oral tradition before.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hypothetical question:
Let us say for the sake of argument that the existence of a supreme being were a scientific accepted fact. Given that, what scientific evidence exists that the supreme being requires any acknowledgment?

The existence of a Bible, Koran, Torah, Thoughts of Mao, etc., is not evidence. They are just volumes of ancient lore.

In other words, the existence of a creator would not necessarily be defacto justification of any organized religion

Disagreements?

If they are JUST volumes of ancient lore then there is no need to concern oneself with what they say about God.

But if any of them do contain something of what god requires then it would be wise to examine them to determine which do and which don't.

One should conduct an examination with due diligence instead of with flipant disgregard. Is that too much to ask? Yet we have people saying things all the time about the veracity of the bible and they clearly don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Not everyone here, just some.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think it is also important to ask for what people were the 10 commandments given. There are many cases in the Bible were God Himself orders the complete destruction of people, cities, and the ground that they lived on to ensure they would not come back.

So, would you argue that the 10 commandments were written for everyone, or just the the "chosen" people? Also, could they have been written for only a few and then interpreted later to be for everyone as the Church expanded much later.

There are several laws contained within the bible. The Adamic law applies to all descendents of Adam. The Abrahamic law to all descendents of Abraham. And the Mosaic Law was given the Hebrews alone through Moses. Lastly the law of Christ is a reaffirmation of the Adamic Law and is given to all who no longer live under Mosaic Law or who never did.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nope, full agreement. Even if we knew for a fact that a Creator/God existed we still currently have no proof or even evidence of what that entity needs/wants/desires/or get pissed off about.

Well all those old writings that claim to contain messages from God are evidence. Now you just need to evaluate the evidence without being biased by the actions of others who have examined it before you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The original Constitution is behind a glass case in a museum somewhere. If I go to the corner store and buy a copy no matter how many changes I make to it the original remains unchanged. If I translate it into french and then change the copies of the translation the original still remains unchanged.

The KJV and the NIV and the NASV are all versions that are translations of the original. The fact that they are different from each other tells us nothing about whether or not the original has been changed.

That the KJV translates the Hebrew word as kill and the NIV translates it as murder in no way means that the original existed as two sources one saying murder and one saying kill.

The original Old Testament was canonized before the 1st century and as far as we know there are not two disagreeing Old Testaments just like there are not two disagreeing Constitutions.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all to say that the canon of the OT was changed at all in any way. Sure we know that there are many different versions but that in no way means that the original was changed.

There is no original. The oldest complere old and new testament in existence is the Codex Sinaiticus which is dramatically different from the King James or any of the other Bibles in use today. THE SECRETS OF MT. SINAI is an excellent work detailing the discovery and the history of the Codex.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The text itself states that it was written first hand from the mouth of Moses and was not an oral tradition before.

Self-referencing is the term, the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. The Book of Mormon is too. Self-referencing is not very dependable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If they are JUST volumes of ancient lore then there is no need to concern oneself with what they say about God.

But if any of them do contain something of what god requires then it would be wise to examine them to determine which do and which don't.

One should conduct an examination with due diligence instead of with flipant disgregard. Is that too much to ask? Yet we have people saying things all the time about the veracity of the bible and they clearly don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Not everyone here, just some.

With NOTHING to go on, it's going to be difficult to decide which holy text is the real one. Due diligence comes down to "I guess I'll believe this one," since there is no proof of any of it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well all those old writings that claim to contain messages from God are evidence. Now you just need to evaluate the evidence without being biased by the actions of others who have examined it before you.

Evidence is not proof, you can have a mountain of contradictory evidence that proves nothing. That's what Christianity is based on. I don't care if you believe it, I personally think that many of the things Jesus is reported to have said are very good concepts on which to base one's life, but you will never hear me say that I have God's Truth or that I speak for God, nor will I ever condemn someone in God's name. Nor will I take rights away from others that I claim for my own and justify it with religious sophistry or idle semantics.

 

[top gun]

It should be pretty obvious that all religion is man made.

All one has to do is put themselves back in the time of the beginnings of any religion to see how it truly evolved. You can also easily see how different religions sprang up in different places.

If God can do all... created the whole world in 7 days... well 6 he rested one. He or she or it certainly coulda/woulda came down everywhere to get that "understand me" ball rolling. But of course that didn't happen because it's all man made up from wherever the different groups or tribes were.

Various tribes all over the world were mystified by most anything. There was virtually no science to rely on and things needed to be explained. Plus every tribe wanted to hold it's power and most wanted to enforce their power onto others (kinda like the Religious Right today).

There is no greater tool for trying to do this than to be able to say... God is on OUR side. Every side says it. It's the proverbial trump card.

Add to that all the millions of scientific events that we take totally for granted today because through science, medicine, research, discovery and education we know it's not magic... our the Gods... or the cookie monster and you can understand why normal events like floods & volcano's, tornado's, plagues and everything else just fit into "stories".

An exceptionally smart man or kind man or strong man could easily be seen as someone from GOD! And what couldn't be covered by that they put a deity up in the clouds (and one in a fire pit if you were naughty) that could not be dis-proven.

Couldn't be proven either but that didn't matter. It was THEIR GOD THE ALMIGHTY!

Religion was nothing more than a way to try and keep people in line at times & places before government and as a competing authority during times of government.

Nothing more.

 

[dahermit]

If they are JUST volumes of ancient lore then there is no need to concern oneself with what they say about God.

But if any of them do contain something of what god requires then it would be wise to examine them to determine which do and which don't.

One should conduct an examination with due diligence instead of with flipant disgregard. Is that too much to ask? Yet we have people saying things all the time about the veracity of the bible and they clearly don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Not everyone here, just some.

If a person studied every religion in the world (thousands), one would not have time to do anything else, like make a living, eat, sleep.
Almost every person who is adamant that their religion is the one handed down by God, has inherited that belief from their parents and/or culture. A nomadic tribesman living in the midst of Muslims with be Muslim. A person born of Catholic parents, raised in that tradition, will almost always be Catholic. An Eskimo born of Eskimos... It has nothing to do with which religion, "...contain something of what god requires then it would be wise to examine them to determine which do and which don't..." First comes the indoctrination, then comes the "research" to prove that my religion is the one that represents the true instructions from God.

 

[samsara15]

If a person studied every religion in the world (thousands), one would not have time to do anything else, like make a living, eat, sleep.
Almost every person who is adamant that their religion is the one handed down by God, has inherited that belief from their parents and/or culture. A nomadic tribesman living in the midst of Muslims with be Muslim. A person born of Catholic parents, raised in that tradition, will almost always be Catholic. An Eskimo born of Eskimos... It has nothing to do with which religion, "...contain something of what god requires then it would be wise to examine them to determine which do and which don't..." First comes the indoctrination, then comes the "research" to prove that my religion is the one that represents the true instructions from God.

I have read the Bible several times in my life, yet find my knowledge of its contents insufficient to satisfy most Christians, although they themselves have many deep disagreements over what it means, as their numerous denominations and sects demonstrate conclusively. So I am substantially in agreement with you about this.