How many Commandments are there?

[Tiapan]

Hi All

I'll ask a simple question.
Given God "spoke" them only once and they were fairly short and subsinct will the real Commandments Please stand up.

What are the 10 commandments?

Having done that I now ask

Do they have any relevance in a 21st Century world?

Before you jump in and say "your silly old fool its this, this and this, like it says on the board at school" I'd like you to take a closer look at Exodus 20, Exodus 30 and Deut 5. in the Bible, then the Torah, the Quran and finally Hammurabi's Ancient Law.

I would further ask the value of the first four Commandments, if one believes, in good faith, that God does not exist.

In my life I have replaced them with Commandment 11
"Do unto others as we would have them do unto us."
I think it is a lovely template for any secular alternative to ceremonial institutionalized religion. Bit like a marriage celebrant instead of a Priest or Imham

BTW Does your book say
"Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder"? Big difference.

My reason for asking this follows:

As the light of information and education grows and the darkness of ignorance and xenophobia retreat, the greater the shift toward secularism and away from religion. This is because many of the "Big Questions" once only the domain of theologians are now more and more being comprehended and answered with reason.

But humans are humans, they like their dancing and ceremonies and big events. We also like father and mother figures to act as moral guides in the quest for social acceptance and fitting in. The ceremonies of birth, coming of age, marriage and death are all mileposts in our personal histories and so should be celebrated as socially significant events. Any post religious secular equivalent will have to carry on parts of these institutionalized ceremonies for consistency. The only other aspect of importance and claimed as a key premise as the sole domain of religion is moral teaching (eg how to make a car bomb - just joking). It is this that I sought to address with the original question.

What is that set of rules we have left if we take god out of the equation ie what are the rules for a secular society?

What surprised me is that most people I spoke to, about this, all thought they knew what the ten commandments were. But on closer examination only 2 out of 40 people (including several devout Christians) actually got even close to correct.

The reason I gave the bible readings above is that in fact, there are 30 commandments. Each is subtly different with each new rendition.
The first ten Moses brought down from the mountain after acting as stenographer for said god (must have been damn fast with the chisel). Later, good old Moses gets infuriated because his kids are having a rave party. so he smashes said rocky tablets of ecstasy in frustration. Down the track he calms down and knocks up a new set except getting a bit senile hes forgotten a little bit here and little bit there, so its close but not the same. New set of rocky tablets. (this lot they stick in a box so old grumpy cant smash em again. Finally, some bloke called Deuteronomy comes along a bit later, says bugger that, here is another set for spares, if you don't like the earlier two sets. This is the one the Catholics ran with. Recently Saint George Bush, almost got away with putting his newest version into all American schools, thankfully sanity prevailed.

My point is these are the so called immutable rules. So like any legal document I figured the wording is pretty damn important.

Hence my final question was an example.

Does it say "Do not Kill" or "Do not Murder"
Big difference. Do not kill is pretty unambiguous. you kill and your in trouble buddy.
But "Do not murder" refers only to individuals killing another, this in theory would still allow state sanctioned killing eg executions and war as these are killing but not murder.

I have in my hand a lovely little bible printed in Glasgow in 1856 and in all the instances of above it states the word is "kill", but in Gideon's and other modern bibles it says "murder".

Who changed it and why?

Cheers

 

[Storm]

According to the Jews, there are 600-odd.

 

[Wookiemonster]

In Judaism there are 613 Mitzvot.

And I'm not sure why you say that the "10 Mitzvot" listed in Shemot (Exdous) chapter 20 and in Devarim (Deuteronomy) chapter 5 are different, they are not.


Shemot Chapter 20:1-14
1 And G-d spoke all these words, saying:
2 I am HaShem thy G-d, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I HaShem thy G-d am a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of HaShem thy G-d in vain; for HaShem will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto HaShem thy G-d, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;
11 for in six days HaShem made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore HaShem blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not murder.
13 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
13 Thou shalt not steal.
13 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
14 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Devarim Chapter 5:1-18
1 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.
2 HaShem our G-d made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 HaShem made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 HaShem spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire--
5 I stood between HaShem and you at that time, to declare unto you the word of HaShem; for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount--saying:
6 I am HaShem thy G-d, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
8 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, even any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I HaShem thy G-d am a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate Me,
10 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
11 Thou shalt not take the name of HaShem thy G-d in vain; for HaShem will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as HaShem thy G-d commanded thee.
13 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
14 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto HaShem thy G-d, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ***, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.
15 And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and HaShem thy G-d brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore HaShem thy G-d commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as HaShem thy G-d commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not murder.
17 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
17 Neither shalt thou steal.
17 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
18 Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's wife; neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ***, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And finally Shemot Chapter 30 is a completly different "set" of Mitzvot that reffer to certian types of scarifices.

Some of the issues (other than those that derive from your belief that G-d does not exist *I'm drawing that conclusion from your writing, if I'm wrong sorry*) that you have with the "10 Commandments" arise from your reading them from the "Old Testament" of a Christian bible. Which means that what you’re reading is an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew translation, and between all those translations things get muddled. Hebrew is a complex language where one word can have many meanings. And 9 times out of 10 what you read in a Christian bible is not what the verse says in the original Hebrew. If you truly wish to read the "Old Testament" that I recommend one of two things. Either learn Hebrew and read the Tanakh in its original language (preferred method) or read a Hebrew to English translation of the Tanakh from a reputable company such as the Jewish Publication Society (JPS).

 

[Dunemeister]

Some of the issues (other than those that derive from your belief that G-d does not exist *I'm drawing that conclusion from your writing, if I'm wrong sorry*) that you have with the "10 Commandments" arise from your reading them from the "Old Testament" of a Christian bible. Which means that what you’re reading is an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew translation, and between all those translations things get muddled.

That hasn't been a problem for a very long time. If there are problems with the perspective in the OP, it has NOTHING to do with reading the result of a translation of a dead language (biblical Hebrew) into a dead language (biblical Greek) into another dead language (Latin) into English. (Indeed, that has actually never been a problem because it has never been the case.)

Hebrew is a complex language where one word can have many meanings. And 9 times out of 10 what you read in a Christian bible is not what the verse says in the original Hebrew.

Well, that's simply false. Modern translations are done by committees of people, all of whom are experts in both biblical Hebrew, modern English, and translation. One can have confidence that a modern translation represents what the biblical Hebrew says (allowing of course for the fact that experts disagree when it comes to the details at times, so the committee must vote on a rendering).

If you truly wish to read the "Old Testament" that I recommend one of two things. Either learn Hebrew and read the Tanakh in its original language (preferred method)

Yes, that's preferred because everyone has the time to learn biblical Hebrew in their spare time.

or read a Hebrew to English translation of the Tanakh from a reputable company such as the Jewish Publication Society (JPS).

Finally we agree.

 

[Wookiemonster]

That hasn't been a problem for a very long time. If there are problems with the perspective in the OP, it has NOTHING to do with reading the result of a translation of a dead language (biblical Hebrew) into a dead language (biblical Greek) into another dead language (Latin) into English. (Indeed, that has actually never been a problem because it has never been the case.)



Well, that's simply false. Modern translations are done by committees of people, all of whom are experts in both biblical Hebrew, modern English, and translation. One can have confidence that a modern translation represents what the biblical Hebrew says (allowing of course for the fact that experts disagree when it comes to the details at times, so the committee must vote on a rendering).



Yes, that's preferred because everyone has the time to learn biblical Hebrew in their spare time.



Finally we agree.

I disagree. The committees who translate the Tanakh into English for the purpose of creating an "Old Testament" do so with the dual purpose of legitimizing their man god Christ.

For example Isaiah 7:14

In the JPS Tanakh it reads: 14 Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


In ANY Christian bible it reads: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.


Note the two highlighted words, one says young woman the other virgin. The reason that the JPS version reads young woman is that the word used in Hebrew is Almah which means young woman as opposed to Betulah which means virgin.


How then did these Christian scholars that you claim we can trust come to the conclusion that even though the word used in Hebrew was Almah rather than Betulah that this woman would be virgin.

The only reason that I see is their need to justify belief in their man god Christ.

I know this is rambling and not well written but I hope you see my point. If not I will try to clarify.

 

[EtuMalku]

The 10 commandments are based on chapter 125 in the Egyptian book of the dead (Although Exodus 34 contains ten imperative statements, the passages in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 contain more than ten, totaling fifteen in all.)

- the Book of the Dead originates at least from 2600 BCE with many versions following. They contain instructions for life after death, a sort of manual. The Hebrew version (10 commandments) originates also in Egypt (1490 BCE Hebrew exodus from Egypt).

- the main difference is that the Hebrew version is shorter, the 42 gods are replaced by 1 god and the sabbath has been added. This version has been passed on to the Christian community totally disregarding the fact that they took a selective chapter out of the book of death.


BIBLE
Have no other gods before me
Make no idols
Do not misuse the name of God
Keep the Sabbath holy
Honor your mother and father
Do not kill
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal
Do not lie
Do not covet another’s property

BOOK OF THE DEAD
I do not tamper with divine balance
I stop not a god when he comes forth
I do not offend the god who is at the helm
(Egyptians had no Sabbath)
I do not harm my kinsmen
I do not kill
I am not an adulterer
I do not rob
I do not tell lies instead of truth
I do no wrong or mischief to others

 

[Tiapan]

Egyptians 1, Hebrews 0.5, Christians 0 so far.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Egyptians 1, Hebrews 0.5, Christians 0 so far.

I'm confused...are you keeping score?

 

[Zardoz]

...
The only reason that I see is their need to justify belief in their man god Christ.

I know this is rambling and not well written but I hope you see my point. If not I will try to clarify.

I agree. The so-called OT is not the Jewish Tanach.

However, the text you chose isn't quite so cut and dried. I translate 'Almah' not as 'young woman' nor as 'virgin' but as 'maiden'.
A maiden is a social term, which implies virginity but is not an absolute status like 'Betulah'. I trust you see the difference?
Considering the context of the statement, of course a 'young woman' bears children, who else would? This is 'dog bites man'.
Common, not at all a 'sign' as the leading text indicates. Why a 'maiden' is a sign is the focal point, and even more telling is why.
(hint: has nothing to do with a god going around impregnating women, like Roman and Greek gods do)

 

[Wookiemonster]

I agree. The so-called OT is not the Jewish Tanach.

However, the text you chose isn't quite so cut and dried. I translate 'Almah' not as 'young woman' nor as 'virgin' but as 'maiden'.
A maiden is a social term, which implies virginity but is not an absolute status like 'Betulah'. I trust you see the difference?
Considering the context of the statement, of course a 'young woman' bears children, who else would? This is 'dog bites man'.
Common, not at all a 'sign' as the leading text indicates. Why a 'maiden' is a sign is the focal point, and even more telling is why.
(hint: has nothing to do with a god going around impregnating women, like Roman and Greek gods do)

I do agree with you that Almah can be translated also as maiden, which could imply virginity.

Here's an interesting thought. One that you might already be familiar with if you have done any anit-missionary readings. Also please note I'm not arguing with you. Your post just made me think of something.

If in fact G-d wanted to inform his people that the mother of the Moshiach was a virgin, do you not think that (considering our eternal souls at least according to Christianity depend on it) the writers would have chosen Betulah which can only mean virgin, rather than the more debatable Almah?

 

[catholic evangelist]

New Testament only one commandment Love others as you love yourself. Same philosophy.

 

[Zardoz]

I do agree with you that Almah can be translated also as maiden, which could imply virginity.

Here's an interesting thought. One that you might already be familiar with if you have done any anit-missionary readings. Also please note I'm not arguing with you. Your post just made me think of something.

If in fact G-d wanted to inform his people that the mother of the Moshiach was a virgin, do you not think that (considering our eternal souls at least according to Christianity depend on it) the writers would have chosen Betulah which can only mean virgin, rather than the more debatable Almah?

I have indeed read many anti-missionary works, and taken them to heart. Which is partly why I am the kind of Messianic Jew that I am today. Only here on RF can I speak freely and be fully myself, and while I move freely within Orthodox, Reform, and yes Messianic circles, none of my friends in any of these communities know my innermost thoughts and beliefs. So, feel free to argue with me, I get no opportunities in RL to debate these issues.

The truth is, the whole 'Almah' issue is very complicated and potentially very controversial, in the extreme. The topic tends to stir heated emotional responses, unlike any other. Since I never ever seek to discredit or refute Christian beliefs for gentiles it's a topic I steer clear of, except with my fellow Jews. So forgive my vagueness in my response.

The term 'Almah' is used because when Miriam conceived Yeshua she was indeed a virgin, but by the time she gave birth she was no longer one. Hence the vague term. Understand that this does not imply that Yeshua was a physical offspring of any god, this strange circumstance came about for another reason.

 

[tomasortega]

Do they have any relevance in a 21st Century world?


In my life I have replaced them with Commandment 11
"Do unto others as we would have them do unto us."
I think it is a lovely template for any secular alternative to ceremonial institutionalized religion. Bit like a marriage celebrant instead of a Priest or Imham

1. hardly any commandmends are relevant in the 21st century. some, such as "dont cook a young goat in its mother's milk" are so foolish and impertinent that they only go to show they did NOT originate from a supreme being, but rather from an uneducated putz from that era....:clap now, the christians on the other hand have a more reasonable, though still foolish approach in saying no commandments from the old apply to us anylonger because LOVE encompasses them all. and once you accept dear sweet jesus in the right or left ventricle of your heart you will be inclined to do more good than bad.


and as far as "secular alternative" goes. lets face it. there is no such thing. its all secular, man made laws. people were following most of those so called "commandments" and coexisted in societies long before the scriptures even existed.
human kind didnt and doesnt base its life on the the bible, the ot was based on human kind.

 

[Wookiemonster]

I have indeed read many anti-missionary works, and taken them to heart. Which is partly why I am the kind of Messianic Jew that I am today. Only here on RF can I speak freely and be fully myself, and while I move freely within Orthodox, Reform, and yes Messianic circles, none of my friends in any of these communities know my innermost thoughts and beliefs. So, feel free to argue with me, I get no opportunities in RL to debate these issues.

The truth is, the whole 'Almah' issue is very complicated and potentially very controversial, in the extreme. The topic tends to stir heated emotional responses, unlike any other. Since I never ever seek to discredit or refute Christian beliefs for gentiles it's a topic I steer clear of, except with my fellow Jews. So forgive my vagueness in my response.

The term 'Almah' is used because when Miriam conceived Yeshua she was indeed a virgin, but by the time she gave birth she was no longer one. Hence the vague term. Understand that this does not imply that Yeshua was a physical offspring of any god, this strange circumstance came about for another reason.

How was she no longer a virgin? Are we assuming that Joseph had relations with her after conception but before birth. Becuase it was my understanding that the "NT" says that she "knew" no man and that Joseph did not "know" her.


Also...might I ask exactly what kind of Messianic Jew you are...your statement above peaked my intrest.

 

[Tiapan]

Surely. Jesus was just a man , a good one, but just a man, the same as all the others mentioned in the religious books. Then there is all this talk of a virgin birth. How politically correct and convenient. That sleazy bloke Gabrielle (an angel - hardly) simply had intercourse with Mary and "begot" Jesus. I am sure the young goat herder Mary was given a comprehensive sex education, NOT. Technically Mary cannot have had a virgin birth of an XY male. (where did the Y chromosome come from) Virgin birth ie a clone could only be XX ie FEMALE). Poor Joseph! Pity they didn't have paternity testing in those days.

So who are we kidding.

God is a woman, the secret is out!

It is these sort of inconsistencies in the light of modern knowledge that really grate away the credibility of the collection of hearsay, that the Bible and Torah etc purport to represent. If they were actually written by a perfect supreme being why would these inconsistencies be present, conclusion they were written by man, for men. Remember in those days women were property not people. I find it funny that if the Bible (read other "One" Books) were tested in a normal western legal court it would fail as evidence, yet it is upon these same books we swear the truth. The world is a funny place.


Cheers.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I agree. The so-called OT is not the Jewish Tanach.

However, the text you chose isn't quite so cut and dried. I translate 'Almah' not as 'young woman' nor as 'virgin' but as 'maiden'.
A maiden is a social term, which implies virginity but is not an absolute status like 'Betulah'. I trust you see the difference?
Considering the context of the statement, of course a 'young woman' bears children, who else would? This is 'dog bites man'.
Common, not at all a 'sign' as the leading text indicates. Why a 'maiden' is a sign is the focal point, and even more telling is why.
(hint: has nothing to do with a god going around impregnating women, like Roman and Greek gods do)

The child's birth is not the sign.... the circumstances of his life (his name, eating cream and honey, end of the threat of the two kings) were the sign.

Mentioning the woman only served to tell WHEN this child would be born... soon... less than 9 months, since the woman was pregnant at the time the prophecy was spoken.

 

[Zardoz]

How was she no longer a virgin? Are we assuming that Joseph had relations with her after conception but before birth. Becuase it was my understanding that the "NT" says that she "knew" no man and that Joseph did not "know" her.

Not Joseph. See:

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also...might I ask exactly what kind of Messianic Jew you are...your statement above peaked my intrest.

A Jewish one.
Really, so many Messianics are not Jewish at all but really Christians that I make it clear here on RF every chance I get that I reject many things that are assumed I believe in due to this label.

The child's birth is not the sign.... the circumstances of his life (his name, eating cream and honey, end of the threat of the two kings) were the sign.

Mentioning the woman only served to tell WHEN this child would be born... soon... less than 9 months, since the woman was pregnant at the time the prophecy was spoken.

Personally, I'm not really sure that Isaiah 7:14 even refers to Yeshua anyway, but simply point out another interpretation of Almah.

 

[Zardoz]

1. hardly any commandmends are relevant in the 21st century. some, such as "dont cook a young goat in its mother's milk" are so foolish and impertinent that they only go to show they did NOT originate from a supreme being, but rather from an uneducated putz from that era....

So, what do you think is the reason behind this commandment? Do you understand it?
If not, then who's the 'uneducated putz' ?

 

[Wookiemonster]

[

quote=Zardoz;1630862]Not Joseph. See:

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So same sentence...except insert Tiberius rather than Jospeh...is this the explination you offer for her lack of viriginity at the time of birth hence the use of Almah. Or do you simply mean that she never had a virgin birth in the sense that may Chrsitians see it.

A Jewish one.
Really, so many Messianics are not Jewish at all but really Christians that I make it clear here on RF every chance I get that I reject many things that are assumed I believe in due to this label.

Simply out of curisoity, would you mind nameing a few of these things. As I have never spoken with you before.

Personally, I'm not really sure that Isaiah 7:14 even refers to Yeshua anyway, but simply point out another interpretation of Almah.

I to have wondered if this speaks of the Moshiach, rather than being meant to comfort Ahaz with words of a more imminent nature.

 

[tomasortega]

So, what do you think is the reason behind this commandment? Do you understand it?
If not, then who's the 'uneducated putz' ?

whatever the reason, it is impertinent to today's society. if it were of some importance we would still have it. the fact that we dont have it in today's society shows that god's commandments do not stand the test of time. unless you agree that some putz wrote those commandments, in which case you would take the blame off of god, but at the same time imply that the commandments, or at the very least some of them were not god inspired, which compromises your holy book.

and tell me, if god personally gave commandments back then, how come he doesnt do it now? especially since many of the commandments are outdated.

if god splt the sea and personally interacted with people, how come he doesnt do it now?