[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Not to nitpick, but if I recall, those other stone tablets are found in Deuteronomy 5, while God supposedly dictated the Exodus 34 version of the Commandments to Moses, who used plain ink to record them.

You recall incorrectly, once again, I'm afraid. Deuteronomy 5 is when Moses read the law to the Israelites, and yes, that chapter contains the Ten Commandments. However, the whole chapter makes no mention of the tablets at all.

According to Exodus 34:1, the second set of tablets were stone and God Himself wrote on them, He didn't mention whether he used plain ink or what.

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."

Originally Posted by Sonist

As far as I am aware, many consider all three occurrences of the "Ten (more or less) Commandments" to be valid, although there are some codified disagreements among the Christian sects, notably between the Catholics and the Protestants. Exodus 34 is often referred to as the renewal of the Covenant.

The list of commands in Exodus 34, does not match the list in Exodus 20 or the one in Deuteronomy 5 -- the latter two do match.

I don't know who considers them to be the same, but I don't based on the simple fact that the words don't come near to being the same.

I'm also unsure why anyone would refer to the Exodus 34 passage as renewing a covenant, it's pretty clear that it's a new covenant altogether. In verse 10, God said He was "making a covenant," not renewing one, and then goes on to talk about things previously unmentioned.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Actually, I don't find it clear at all, particularly in light of Exodus 34.16: "And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."

Again the context is important, the entire statement there is: "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same." (Exodus 34:15-16)

Originally Posted by Sonist

Now, if God drove out all the poor Canaanites and other schmucks "before you," and as you state, the former inhabitants were no longer resident in those lands, what "daughters" is God talking about? Mail-order brides?

As the full directive makes clear, God was explaining why he was insisting that they not make treaties with the other peoples in the land: so that their children would not marry the children of those other people and be led away.

This is a fine example of what I was saying about taking a statement out of context so that it appears to mean the opposite of what it actually says. A suggestion here, the old King James Version is pretty bad about being easy to follow, if you'll try the New International Version or the New American Standard Version, or the New King James Version (the site I've been getting links from has all three and many more besides), you'll find the language itself much easier to follow. Those three are all considered excellent translations, and they're direct from very early texts, whereas the old KJV has been serially translated (versions updated from versions, and so on), and has quite a few points that have been spindled along the way.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, again, I used the words "intolerance and militancy" in connection with religion in general, and monotheistic religions in particular. While "intolerance and militancy" may include attempts at conversion of the followers of competing deities, it also includes just smiting the "infidels."

I think HarryT's already addressed that point quite well.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Like in "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22.20.

Again, context. This is part of the laws that continues the Ten Commandments (which go on for several chapters). Those laws were for the Israelites, for their internal conduct, not directives to go to other nations and destroy people just because they served other gods. As even further example of how context is important Exodus 20:21 (the very next sentence) says, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

Originally Posted by Sonist

Or, to quote Jesus himself, again: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

For crying out loud, Sonist -- this is part of a parable! The better known version is accounted in Matthew 24:14-30 where it's called the The Parable of the Talents. This version in Luke 19:11-27 is called the Parable of the Minas. You're not even quoting Jesus' words, you're quoting Jesus quoting a figure in the story.

The stories are generally held to be illustrative of what Jesus refers to as "The Kingdom of Heaven," and this one maps pretty well to what was actually going on with the Jewish leaders at the time. If we carry that out logically, Jesus was predicting that the Jewish leaders who rejected him as the Christ (and crucifixion is a pretty firm rejection) would be punished when he returned on what's know commonly referred to as "Judgment Day." Since this is directed at the Jewish Leaders, and Jesus was Jewish, how can it be perceived as intolerance for other religious beliefs?


I'm beginning to wonder if you're deliberately taking pieces out of context.