The Mystery Of The Ten Commandments

One of things that is hard to understand about some of Christianity is its fascination with the Ten Commandments. Even though representatives of the Jewish faith, where they came from, have little use for display of them on public property and even though the story of their origin is full of holes, a part of Christianity treats them like the holy grail.

So far as I know, every national Jewish organization opposes display of the Ten Commandments on government property. Jews have been kicked around enough by governments they have suspicion of Christians who want chest beating religion in government. The current incidents of antisemitism confirms their wisdom.

In the story of Moses, a god apparently jack hammered into some stone the laws and a Moses with super strength carried them down a mountain.  If these inscribed stones ever existed, someone might find them, or, the pieces of them. Since the story teller knew they never existed it was necessary in the story to have them destroyed.

As the centuries moved along, something changed in the cultures where Christianity landed and those in the faith needed the Ten Commandments. Even though the word “wives” is used instead of “wife”, wives are listed among the property a man owns and killing was done by Christians enthusiastically in war, Christians claimed these are rules we should all follow.

So far as we know, the Ten Commandments were written by wealthy goat herders for their own purposes. They should not be displayed on government property.

 

43 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    First of all, most of the 10 C’s are a part of most religions for eons of time. 2ndly, the wealthy goat herder was busy establishing his own “kingdom” and needed to fine tune the rules and contain the power with in his inner circle. 3rd, of course women and kids had to continue as property to be ruled by men.

  2. The 10 Commandments are for our own salvation.

    I can see a swath of sinners settin’ yonder
    And they’re actin’ like a pack of fools.
    Gazin’ into space lettin’ their minds wander,
    ‘Stead of studyin’ the good Lord’s rules.
    You better pay attention,
    Build your comprehension,
    There’s gonna be a quiz at your ascension.
    Not to mention any threat of hell,
    But if you’re smart you’ll learn your lessons well!

    Ev’ry bright description of the promised land meant,
    You can reach it if you keep alert.
    Learnin’ ev’ry line and ev’ry last commandment
    May not help you, but it couldn’t hurt.
    First ya gotta read ’em, then ya gotta heed ’em.
    Ya never know when you’re gonna need ’em
    Just as old Elijah said to Jezebel
    “You better start to learn your lessons well!”

    1. Matt 8:58 The 10 Commandments are for our own salvation.

      Like millions of others, you buy into what the wealthy goat herders told people thousands of years ago. “Do what we tell you, pay us money and we will both be better off. It’s a win-win.”

      1. You better pay attention,
        Build your comprehension,
        There’s gonna be a quiz at your ascension.
        Not to mention any threat of hell,
        But if you’re smart you’ll learn your lessons well!

        Let’s see, goat herders or econ professor at N.D.S.U.? I’ll go with the goatherders. God always chose the lowly to bring down the mighty. David of David & Goliath. A lowly carpenter from Bethlehem. 3 children from Fatima, Bernadette of Lourdes.

      2. Let’s see. You don’t believe in the authenticity of the Bible but you’re absolutely sure it was an invention of wealthy goat herders. But you have no proof of the latter. It does fit your narrative, though. I don’t know of any rich priests and I’ve been walking this earth for almost 60 years. It seems you don’t have a fact to stand on, Jon. Even the Bishops I know are financially much worse off than an engineer, FedEx driver or construction foreman. Perhaps you can tell me about all these modern-day wealthy clergy roaming the planet.

  3. Juan Ruiz

    Two points again:

    The word “neighbor” in Hebrew meant kinsman. The laws did not apply to the Hebrews association with other groups.

    Attributing the creation of them to the time of Moses is anachronistic. In that era the Hebrews had no written language.

  4. Brandon

    2+2=6….Good, now everyone can believe this math to be true because it’s on the internet. You all seem to be really good at that and using it in you non fact checked arguments.

    1. entech

      That is not possible. BUT, you could have 2 + 2 = 5 If you played with integers and discrete mathematics and if you made 2 big enough. 🙂

  5. I Like Jon. He’s a good man. However, for a man who claims not to believe in God, Jon is obsessed to write on little else than religion and express his theistic beliefs. I suspect the man “Protesteth too much.”

    The balance of Jon’s article has very little to do with its opening question. Jon wonders about the facination Christianity has with the 10 commandments. I know Jon has read the Bible. I know Jon is a very smart man. I mean that sincerely. Yet, he seems to be willfully ignorant of what the Bible says. The answer to his opening sentence is in the Bible. Clearly, the 10 commandments are throughout the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament which commands Christians to love, says love fulfills the commandments.

    Rom. 13:8-11, ‘Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.”

    Jon, here’s the answer to your opening question concerning Christianity’s “fascination” with the 10 commandments. They are just as much a part of New Testament Christianity as Old Testament Judaism. Hope this helps unravel this less than difficult mystery for you.

    1. DLV 8:29 Nice to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to compose a well written comment. You explain well the various virtues of the 10C. They do not, however, justify nor explain the obsession with putting them on public property.

  6. Jon, why are you against having propositional content to how one ought to love his neighbor? I understand why you might no like the first 4 commandments given your theophobia, but what could you have against the remaining 6 commandments? Would every community be a better place to live if we all strove to guide our interpersonal relationships by these commandments?

    1. DLV 9:15 I understand why you might no like the first 4 commandments given your theophobia, but what could you have against the remaining 6 commandments?

      Courts have removed lots of 10C monuments. They did not do it because of my “throphobia”. The did it because of Constitutional arguments.

  7. Jon, you avoided answering my questions, which I will restate in a moment. First, while I take you seriously,(and I do), I don’t take you so seriously as to think the courts were responding to your personal theophobic comments.

    My questions to you were, don’t you agree that our communities would be better places to live if all citizens lived by the 6 commandments or the so-called second table of the Law?

    Secondly, is there anything in the propositional content of the last 6 commandments you believe to be detrimental to society?

    1. DLV 10:25 My questions to were were, don’t you agree that our communities would be better places if all citizens lived by the 6 commandments…Secondly, is there anything in the propositional contend of the last 6 commandments you believe to be detrimental to socity?

      Here you dive, seemingly unknowing, into a pit of controversy. First, which versions of the last six commandments will be posted? The “Catholic version”, “Protestant version” or the version in the Koran. Then, if Hindu citizens or a gazillion others want their versions, what then?

      Second, how are we to interpret the six? As they were understood originally in the cultures and at the time they were written, or, as we might apply them today? When they were written they clearly meant women were the property of men. Men could have sex with slaves and it was not adultery. From Widkipedia:

      Originally this commandment forbade male Israelites from having sexual intercourse with the wife of another Israelite; the prohibition did not extend to their own slaves. Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, married or not, and a woman who was neither married or betrothed was not considered adultery.[109] This concept of adultery stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage whereby the husband has an exclusive right to his wife, whereas the wife, as the husband’s possession, did not have an exclusive right to her husband.[110]

      So, to answer your question, “Do you object to any of the last six?” the answer is yes. At least as they were originally understood.

      There are a host of practical reasons government should not post the first four or last six commandments. Government has venues for posting information advising citizens about their health and well being. These sources have been vetted for the best accuracy at the time–obesity, drugs, alcohol, exercise, cleanliness, child care, licensing of health care personnel, etc. If government is to post something on a granite stone in the public square, it would be better to post something we understand, that helps people in their lives and does not violate the separation of church and state.

      1. nemo82

        Jon, I could comment on your last “comment” but I won’t inasmuch as you obviously have followed thru on your promise to exclude my comments from this delightful site. that’s good actually: I was wasting way too much time writing posts for your pastel of fanatics. but one final word: you should spend your time posting public policy items: much better use of your time that your preoccupation with trashing Christianity. truth to tell you have neither the intellectual breadth nor the intellectual discipline to comment on religion, philosophy or ethics. you have, in short, allowed yourself to become fanaticized. adieu, I hope.

        1. entech

          A fascinating final post from someone who claims to have been censored, he should be censured for some of his writings but not censored. I have been having fun writing here for almost as long as it has been open and one thing I would say is that I cannot imagine Jon as censor. I am sure there are posts that get sent into the “sinbin” automatically and Jon has the choice of accepting or rejecting them. I am guessing there are many that are simply spam or rubbish for the sake of it and so on and are, quite rightly, left there. The system makes mistakes sometimes and legitimate mistakes and by the time Jon finds and posts the things in question time and has passed and some people (Hi Matt) have leaped in about being vetted when they are not, these people never retract their complaints but are always demanding retractions from Jon.

          Going by some of the things you say to people I can only imagine you have slipped under the low bar you set for yourself and a particular post was removed. That your final (as you say hopefully) bit of insult demonstrates your comments have not been excluded from this delightful site, if a particular post has been removed I would use a bit of introspection and consider why that particular one was found to be so offensive – I can only guess as to who you may have been on the attack against, probably one of our lady writers, Jon has, and continues, to demonstrate that you can say anything you like about him. There have been some personal ones against Jon that I have found hilarious, I have mentioned before that one of my favourites was that he was nothing but “a turd in the punchbowl of life”.

  8. Jon, your answer is nothing but obfuscation. It doesn’t matter how some non-21st century practiced these commands. Their actions are no argument for or against what we do in the here and now.

    Which do you have a problem with? Which of the following should the government no support or encourage?

    Children honor your father and mother.
    No killing.
    No adultery.
    No stealing.
    No false witness.
    No coveting.

    1. DLV 11:50 Their actions are no argument for or against what we do in the here and now.

      Maybe we could resolve this by posting the six with the kind disclaimers that apply to how we “do in the here and now.” Some simplified disclaimers, more would need to be added later I’m sure, would go like this:

      NO KILLING except in war, self defense, when practicing behavior that is widely approved of like driving fast or excluding poor people from health care for political reasons and abortion is not killing under present laws.

      NO ADULTERY the definition here does not include cheating on a significant other when no marriage vows have been taken (or maybe it does)

      NO STEALING except when law enforcement has reason to believe there are drug transactions, no convictions, and assets are taken to help law enforcement budgets

      NO FALSE WITNESS except when law enforcement lies to a suspect telling him there will be no consequences to confessing and his partner has already named him which he has not or when political operatives make up stuff and put it on the net

      You seem confident you know what the six mean as presently used. I would appreciate it if you could edit or added disclaimers to mine so we could be accurate about today’s uses of these commandments.

    2. entech

      Dlv, do you mind if I chip in with a little comment. I am a foreigner, Australian resident English born and schooled, not sure of the details but many of your states have capital punishment, one recently seems to be rushing a few through because the killing drugs are reaching their use by date. Coincident with this I see many people writing about how “this is a Christian nation”, created as such and so on. How does this reconcile with your “No killing”, there are no qualifications on your version of the commandment. With your blunt statement you would even have to disband your armed forces.

      A question that frequently comes to mind when reading some of the Biblical things that plainly interpreted are pretty atrocious, when I see long and specious attempts to justify something I think the following:
      “if something objectionable is not to be taken literally, can be open to explanation and interpretation? If we do not take it all but only the convenient bits? and as there are so many denominations based on these different readings, reading into scripture and reading out of it, where do we draw the line on what to accept and what to reject? Can we really be justified in accepting any of it?

      1. entech 10:15 If we do not take it all but only the convenient bits? and as there are so many denominations based on these different readings, reading into scripture and reading out of it, where do we draw the line on what to accept and what to reject? Can we really be justified in accepting any of it?

        I listed a few exceptions and qualifications for the six commandments. On the NO KILLING one we have an exemption for enemies, abortion and self defense. We should add an exemption for innocent people killed in warfare as “collateral damage”. Drone attacks and air attacks in general kill lots of innocent people. Then, we need to give God a pass on killing. According to the Bible, he killed countless babies and children in Noah’s flood. Some claim God killed two million innocent people in Bible stories.

        If we puts all the exemptions for the NO KILL commandment on stone monuments we would need a stone so big it could not be moved.

        1. entech

          Jon, on this same sort of theme I sometimes suggest that if we keep adding ad hoc explanations, free will, the fall are a couple of cover all, we will eventually start contradicting one with another and end up explaining nothing. As you are pointing out here in the one case “No killing” we start building up a stock of exemptions when we get enough to cover all circumstances the commandment becomes meaningless.

      2. Entech, thank you for your reply. In response, I observe several ways in which you mishandle the Bible. First, the Bible is a covenantal book which is not mono-covenantal. Not only is there more than one covenant in the Bible, there are more than one kind of covenant. Two fundamental covenatal structures in Scripture are the Suzeran Vassel Covenant and the Royal Grant Covenant, sometimes described as covenants of works or covenants of grace. Since God always relates to man in terms of a covenant, failure to make proper distinctions between these covenants and appropriately link any particular verse to its correct covenantal structure will likely produced misunderstanding.

        Second, failure to distinguish between three kinds of laws; moral, ceremonial, and civil. The failure to make these distinctions is very common. Much of the criticism people make about Biblical ethics stems from this mistake.

        Third, is your failure to make proper distinctions in the spheres of authority in the Bible. There are three primary spheres, family, church, civil. While interdependent they are mutually exclusive. The authority and responsibility of one sphere are alway distinct from the others. To conflate them leads to significant confusion. Something clearly you have done as many Christians and non-Christians have done.

        For example, the prohibition of killing of Exodus 20-Deuteronomy 5 is a moral law that is related to personal ethics. Elsewhere in the Bible, when addressing civic authority structures, the power to take life is given. The authority to judicially take life is not given to the individual but to the governing body. The individual isn’t given the power of capital punishment but the civic authority is. Failure to make these sorts of distinctions has lead many into all sorts of twisting of Biblical teaching.

        Finally, in reference to America being a Christian nation, this too is a misnomer. Maybe in 1620 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony one could say that people were trying to establish a “Christian society” but by 1789 there was no such commitment. The constitution makes no moral or religious test for the three branches of government. Nor were the frames equally committed to Christ or Christianity. Clearly men like Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were not orthodox Christians. Franklin and Jefferson were deistic, maybe Unitarian. Whatever they were they were not Biblical Christians and were not interested in establishing a “Christian Society” in a manner that the Pilgrims in 1620 would have conceived of it.

        People often fail to understand that between 1620 and 1789 many things had changed in America. From 1620 to the writing of the constitution is just short of the amount of time from the 1789 to today. Much proverbial water had gone under the bridge between 1620 to 1789 as it has from then to today. For example, in the 1730’s you have the Great Awakening. If America was so Christian why were Edwards and Whitefield preaching as they did? Yale and Harvard, established to train men for the ministry were already considered liberal and no longer teaching orthodox Christianity. This is why men like Edwards help start Princeton and other Dartmouth. According to David Wells of Gordon-Conwell, on 17% of the population of America attended church regularly in the 1780-90’s.

        In a letter to Adams, Jefferson would complain that the Trinitaians and the Calvinist were a problem to the new nation.

        Jon taught economics at NDSU, as I understand it. I also am told he was a very fine professor in his day. Greatly respected by many. I think he’d be the first to say that many pedestrian economists who read an economic book or two often fail to understand the finer points of economic theory and so make many fallacious statement and draw gratuitous conclusions about economic policy.

        When it comes to the Bible, everyone fancies himself an authority with the ability to make informed comments about the text of scripture. Many pontificate about the Bible’s meaning as if they had the theological training equivalent to Jon’s economic training. The results typically aren’t good.

        1. entech

          I do appreciate the difference between the different types of agreements or covenants, the straight out grant as in The Noahic Covenant is promise not to do it again. The covenant with Abraham was an obligation given to the Suzerain, to God, this is a conditional promise.
          And so we go through until Christians talk of the New Covenant of Yeshua.

          The problem that I have is that I am not convinced that the God of the Bible actually exists which does affect the way I think of the Bible.
          I could always be wrong but I see no reason to change.

          1. entech 7:34 I do appreciate the difference between the different types of agreements or covenants, the straight out grant as in The Noahic Covenant is promise not to do it again.

            Our well read Protestant friends here, Catcher and pastor DLV, take quite seriously the theory there exist “covenants” in the Bible. Maybe if the Bible were written today it would have the name of Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.”

            Like you, it is hard for me to take seriously these “agreements” or deals made with a god when the god reveals neither his own existence nor evidence he actually delivered on promises made. The human is required to deliver something, behavior or money, the god is required to show nothing.

            In a business agreement, contract or “covenant”, each party requires of the other some documentation he/she has the resources to carry out what ever is promised. To me, the “covenants” in the Bible are like a man begging for coins in the street who suddenly walks into a hotel and says, “I’m paying you 100 million dollars for this place. Give me the keys.”

            It seems to me, and as you say, “I could be wrong”, the ancient unknown writers of the Bible were Donald Trumps. They knew how to present their offer while not being required to show their cards. The covenants are truly “The Art of the Deal.”

          2. Glad to read you understand covenantal distinctions. My observations concerning your original reply to my comments has little to do with your lack of understanding divine authorship. Your question was about killing not authorship. Your statement on killing reflects a lack of understanding the distinctions I listed; covenants. Also a failure to distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. Finally,the failure to make appropriate distinctions between family, church, civic government. None of these distinctions are effected by authorship.

          3. DLV 8:50 None of these distinctions are effected by authorship.

            I think I understand from you posts you see a difference in classifications of covenants, moral, ceremonial and civil. This is an interesting theoretical observation. It seems reasonable, however, to question their importance.

            You dismiss entech’s question of authorship as if it is an entirely different topic. I don’t see how the authorship can be separated out so casually. If the authorship is in question, if it in fact is unknown or is self serving, then hair splitting the categories seem is of no importance at all. At least, that is how it strikes me.

          4. entech

            It is true I started of querying the plain straight out “thou shalt not kill” as an unconditional statement. You then schooled me on the covenants and hence the nature of the commandments, that they could indeed have conditions attached. Which brings me back to my 11:04 pm

            I would also reiterate that these are seen through the eyes of someone with enough doubt to be called a non-believer by most.

    3. Juan Ruiz

      “Children honor your father and mother.”

      What does this mean? Is it a blanket command? What if they physically and/or mentally abuse you? What if they dump you in day care at five days of age, and expect schools to feed you breakfast and lunch?

      You are supposed to love the the Lord your God, but honor your parents. In what way? And why the quid pro quo “that your days may be long…”

      1. entech

        This one is certainly a puzzle. I did because they deserved it and earned it. What bout the case in Austria not long ago with the daughter locked up for years and bearing children by her father and apparently the other not ding anything. Fritzl. What kind of covenant would cover that sort of thing.

        1. Juan Ruiz

          The central problem here, as with so many Biblical texts, is ambiguity; what does “honor” mean? The only recourse was a posteriori interpretation by subsequent commentators. And notice what is not commanded: obedience, respect, love.

          It cannot be forgotten that we are talking a clan society, where everyone was in some way related. Family took precedence for the good of all. Which is why the commandments stress kinsman. The English translation gives an erroneous connotation. This importance is further reflected in other texts: stone a rebellious son, the punishment for striking a parent is death.

          1. re: Honor thy father and mother–There is a trial coming up where a teen aged daughter killed her father who was raping her. Others in the family knew of the rape. This girl violated two commandments, thou shalt not kill, honor thy father. She is really in trouble with God because the father violated none of the commandments.

            Folks who post here, like my personal friend, DLV, could help us a lot by explaining how we would all be better off making the 10C part of our community’s rules to follow.

          2. Juan Ruiz

            When people accept texts as “holy,” have no clue as to the social and cultural situation when they were written, and cannot read them in the original language, but have to depend on translations, they are stuck believing what other people tell them to believe. Those other people are representatives of that religion, and will say whatever dogma they have received. So, you are not going to get a neutral or objective response.

          3. Juan 11:51 When people accept texts as “holy,” have no clue as to the social and cultural situation when they were written, and cannot read them in the original language, but have to depend on translations, they are stuck believing what other people tell them to believe

            Good summary and answer to the question, “Why are there skeptics?” Also answers the question, “Why are you opposed to displays of the Ten Commandments on public property?”

  9. Eric

    Good afternoon Jon,

    I was reading your post and was wondering some things.

    First you state that the origin of the Ten Commandments is full of holes. How do you come to this conclusion?

    What do you mean by ‘a part of Christianity treats the Ten Commandments like the holy grail’?

    It would appear that you have a large chip on your shoulder about that ‘God that supposedly jack hammered the Ten Commandments into some rocks.’

    If every Christian in the world made an excuse to kill someone or do something hypocritical ( which, unfortunately we all have) and that God that you are mocking is real and true, what are you going to do when you stand before Him? Are you going to tell Him that you never had enough evidence to believe in Him? ( I would argue that even without the Bible, there is the creation and our conscience that screams that there is a Creator.) Are you going to tell Him that all the believers in Him were hypocrites and so since there were so many hypocrites, you decided that He was wrong?

    Please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, Jon. The God of the Bible should and will not be judged by the actions of His believers.

    The reason that true christians want to have the Ten Commandments on display is the fact that they remind our hearts how deceitfully wicked they truly are. We have all told lies, blasphemed Gods name, stolen, dishonored our parents, been angry at someone unjustly ( which Jesus said is murder in our hearts ), not put God first and foremost in our lives. Why? Because we are sinners and we need a Savior.

    We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and we are wholly undeserving of anything but punishment for all eternity for sinning against God. The reason christians warn about hell is because of the horrid and unfathomable punishment that it is. Jesus said to the Jewish people of His day not to fear the romans who could kill the body only but to fear God who could kill the body and then put the soul in hell for all eternity where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die. The romans were above all to be feared because they were ridiculously brutal killers. This is not to paint God as a brutal murderer but to show the seriousness of sin.

    Imagine this; you, Jon, you lie to a child, what’s going to happen to you, nothing. You lie to your wife, maybe you spend a night on the couch. You lie at work, lose your job. Lie to the federal government in court, go to jail. All these situations have the lie in common, what changes? The authority of the person against whom you lied. So, when you lie and that is an offense to God who is much higher in authority than that of the government, what should He do with you?

    This is why hell is reasonable. We do not see our sin as the offense that it is.

    The good news? God made a way for our sin to be put upon someone else. All my wickedness, if not paid for I full deserves eternal conscious torment, but God, for He sake of His glory, sent His only Son, Jesus the Christ, the redeemer of my ( and your sin ) if you will humble yourself, repent, and put your faith, not in yourself, but in Jesus work and death on the cross at Calvary.

    Please, Jon, do not harden your heart to the truth. It is not true because I say it is, nor is it false because you say it is false. It is true because it is true and over and over again, proves itself to be the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by Jesus.

    Thank you for your time Jon.

    Eric

    1. Eric 2:09 Thank you for taking time to write your thoughts. Many, perhaps even the majority who follow this blog, agree with you.

      Please, Jon, do not harden your heart to the truth. It is not true because I say it is, nor is it false because you say it is false. It is true because it is true and over and over again, proves itself to be the way, the truth and the life.

      So far as we know, the Bible was written by unknown authors for their own purposes. Today very wealthy people mostly do things to protect their wealth and influence. At the time the Bible was written only the very wealthy were literate. I assume the very wealthy at that time were like the very wealthy today and that the Bible was written to keep the less wealthy under their control. Now, if there is some evidence to the contrary I am open to looking at it. As it is, I am skeptical those who wrote the Bible had something other than their own interests in mind.

      Thanks again for posting.

  10. Jinx II

    As stated earlier the 10 c’s are found in most religions through eons of time over the whole world. Group or social needs to maintain group harmony and cohesiveness for everyone’s good. Mankind has been perfectly capable to draw up the 10 c’s themselves but inventing a folk tale about Moses and the tablets served a manipulative purpose. The last 6 are common sense to prevent social chaos, the first 4 are agents of social control through manipulation.

    If I remember correctly, there is absolutely no evidence of a baby named Moses, pulled from the bullrushes, adopted by royalty or even the exodus from any ancient Egyptian source.

    1. JinxII 3:42 Mankind has been perfectly capable to draw up the 10 c’s themselves but inventing a folk tale about Moses and the tablets served a manipulative purpose

      The improbable stories in the Bible have always seemed manipulative to me. Others, such as our friend today, say it is because of my defective hardened heart.

      1. Jinx II

        The usual response to your refusal to be manipulated with out any real evidence. If the bible and 10 c’s was an Alien writ delivered by a UFO from another galaxy that called itself heaven would it be any more factual or credible? I don’t think so, we would probably haul the human looking individual in for a mental evaluation. There are a lot of suckers in the world and not enough challengers of the status quo or tradition.

    2. entech

      Jinx, the Moses story or versions are as old as the commandments and still found today.
      A young woman goes home with a baby, Daddy look what I found can we keep him (her).

Leave a Reply