Roman Catholicism have their own ways of enumeration.
The difference is due to Roman Catholics follow the Decalogue, Deut.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Roman Catholicism have their own ways of enumeration.
Not really. There are hundreds of other gods to choose from. You can't choose your biological parents.Its like saying, you will not have other biological parents.
So a command then.The word "shall" is misleading. It is not written in the Hebrew text.
The Hebrew text says: You will not have any other god, rather than You shall not.
Exactly. God says that no of the others are really god.Not really. There are hundreds of other gods to choose from. You can't choose your biological parents.
It is more like saying "You will have no other friends than me".
No. A fact.So a command then.
Nope again.Or a prediction, which has been repeatedly proved wrong - not a good look for an omniscient god.
Yes. The human language is very limited. that is one of our problem as a specie.You claimed that the words can have a variety of meanings and are often loosely translated. That means the actual meaning is not clear, or everyone would interpret them the same.
Can you give me an example of something vague in the Hebrew texts?Well, that's god's fault.
If parliament enacted laws that were so vague and easily manipulated, they would be amended.
So does "I am". It doesn't mean "You shall have no".But "atom" has a very narrow definition.
Exactly my point.If I claimed that it meant "tree" or "to think", it would be demonstrably wrong.
The entire Hebrew language is constructed in a way that the meaning of a word derives from its "root" characters.Your argument is that those are both possible meanings of the word, even if you wouldn't use them.
So based on this logic:Not really. The latter is a logical implication of the former, not an alternative meaning of the words.
How are they about religion?Apart from the first four which are exclusively and explicitly about god and religion.
In the entire OT, have you seen one time that god commanded something and it didn't happen?That is irrelevant. Each one begins with "Do" or "Don't". Those are, by definition, commands or orders.
Actually... לא תחמד pretty much covers it.Yet there is no commandment against rapacious capitalism
Also covered in לא תחמד / לא תגנבand the exploitation of labour
These are explained (or given) much earlier in the story.or the destruction of the environment. Bit of a shame really.
The reported ones maybe.Not true. Rates of sexual assaults have been in decline for decades.
Yes there are. The commandments are not just physical, but this is a much more complex issue.However, there is no commandment against rape or domestic violence.
That is far from true.This seems like deliberate dishonesty on your part.
Not only is there no prohibition of slavery in the commandments, elsewhere in the Bible god actively encourages it.
Non of the above. It is from reading the actual text.If a leader speaks words to a subordinate, and those spoken words are "Do not do that", it is a command. Whether your argument is from ignorance or dishonesty is anyone's guess.
Yet again, you are mistaking the "ten commandments" to be commandments.So no one in the history of the world has ever disobeyed one of god's commands?
Really?
Which was exactly my point. God is bigging himself up, claiming he is better than all the other gods.Exactly. God says that no of the others are really god.
Hence, one should not prey, worship, etc. any of them
Ok, so let's suppose that god is saying "You will not worship any god but me" as a definite prediction - like telling a child they will not be able to stay awake all night.No. A fact.
This is such a poor argument. And it is exactly the same argument that is made by every other type of religionist. "My god is real, yours are imaginary!" It really is amusing that grown people can actually say that with a straight face.Nope again.
You might think other things are god, you are free to do so. The fact remains, that even you think such a thing, god is only one.
You can the sun is a god and that it possesses spiritual powers. You are free to do so. Yet the regality is, that it is not.
So does any image, statue, imagination or any thing you might think as one.
Oh dear. There is no "human language". There are many different languages, some imprecise and ungainly, some sophisticated and capable of precision.Yes. The human language is very limited. that is one of our problem as a specie.
"Oh, but all those bilingually fluent, religious scholars over the years didn't know what they were doing and got it all wrong. But I, Random Person of the Internet, shall correct them".The English translation is very different than the Hebrew words.
The Modern Hebrew is very different than the ancient Hebrew.
You were the one who claimed that passages could have very different meanings.Can you give me an example of something vague in the Hebrew texts?
No one has claimed that it does afaiaaSo does "I am". It doesn't mean "You shall have no".
So now you aren't claiming that Hebrew words can have widely different meanings, and have been mistranslated?Exactly my point.
No, that is the way it evolved over time. It was not "constructed".The entire Hebrew language is constructed in a way that the meaning of a word derives from its "root" characters.
Oh, so now Hebrew is a vague and imprecise language.There are many Hebrew words that are translated to wrong words and it causes a lot of misinterpretations.
I would suggest that believing in their existence is indeed a logical implication of having parents.So based on this logic:
I am your parent => You must believe in me
Jeez, really?How are they about religion?
Yes. He commanded people to only worship him. Billions don't.In the entire OT, have you seen one time that god commanded something and it didn't happen?
Well, if you really think that the best your god could manage as a prohibition of slavery or exploiting labour is "do not steal or covet", then either god or the Hebrew language is not fit for purpose.Also covered in לא תחמד / לא תגנב
But no commandment against it. Quite the lack of foresight on god's part there.These are explained (or given) much earlier in the story.
People are more ready and more likely to report sexual assault today than they were 25 years ago.The reported ones maybe.
There is no commandment against rape. Stop making **** up!Yes there are. The commandments are not just physical, but this is a much more complex issue.
Women taken captive or enslaved during god's divinely ordained wars could be used for sex, as concubines, forcibly married, etc. All of this amounts to rape.That is far from true.
You are mixing it up (as most people) because you haven't really red the bible.
You are neglecting the entire story that precedes these rules.
I bet you also think god wants animal sacrifice... which is by far, one of the most false ideas people have from the OT.
Your are mixing it up with (slandered) permits, which is a whole different thing.
I think you have misunderstaood. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews ALL believe in teh decalogue, but enumerate it differently.The difference is due to Roman Catholics follow the Decalogue, Deut.
I think you have misunderstaood. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews ALL believe in teh decalogue, but enumerate it differently.
It is not "bigging" it self, simply stating there is no otherWhich was exactly my point. God is bigging himself up, claiming he is better than all the other gods.
We can suppose that, but that is not what it is saying.Ok, so let's suppose that god is saying "You will not worship any god but me" as a definite prediction
Ok.. Lets say Commanding the child.. not telling- like telling a child they will not be able to stay awake all night.
Indeed. Free will.He is clearly wrong because since then, most people have worshiped other gods or no god.
LolWhichever way you look at it, it makes god look foolish.
One can say what ever he likes. This doesn't make it trueThis is such a poor argument. And it is exactly the same argument that is made by every other type of religionist. "My god is real, yours are imaginary!" It really is amusing that grown people can actually say that with a straight face.
I meant the ability of humans to talk and generate languages.. not the "Human language" as a wholeOh dear. There is no "human language". There are many different languages, some imprecise and ungainly, some sophisticated and capable of precision.
Not what I claimed."Oh, but all those bilingually fluent, religious scholars over the years didn't know what they were doing and got it all wrong. But I, Random Person of the Internet, shall correct them".
GladlyDo us all a favour.
No. I claimed words have a different meaning based on context.You were the one who claimed that passages could have very different meanings.
Yet every time you talk about commandments, you say "You shall not" or "You shall", while the fact is, it is not really written in the OT.No one has claimed that it does afaiaa
No. I claim translation of the Hebrew language of the OT are not what the actuall meaning is.So now you aren't claiming that Hebrew words can have widely different meanings, and have been mistranslated?
You are welcomeCould you make your mind up what your argument is here? Thanks.
Construction is a time consuming process.No, that is the way it evolved over time. It was not "constructed".
Ancient Hebrew is indeed vague to modern Hebrew, same as any other modern language to its ancient ones.Oh, so now Hebrew is a vague and imprecise language.
Nope... that's GodMan, you are all ob=ver the place!
Yet it is not.I would suggest that believing in their existence is indeed a logical implication of having parents.
Where does it say that?Jeez, really?
"I am the best god"
Where does it say that?"Worship only me"
Yep."Do not misuse my name"
Where does it say that?"Have a special day for worshiping me".
Actually.. It seems you are the one who is confused, inventing texts that are not really there.You do seem rather confused by all this.
Those are all clear implications of the phrases used.Where does it say that?
Where does it say that?
Yep.
Nothing spiritual here, its even the other way around.
Where does it say that?
Actually.. It seems you are the one who is confused, inventing texts that are not really there.
If there were so clear, there will be no different interpretations of the texts.Those are all clear implications of the phrases used.
If you are just resorting to the pedantic "Show me where that exact word is used in the Bible" type of apologetics, then you really have reached a dead end.
We are not talking about "texts" The issue is the 10 commandments.If there were so clear, there will be no different interpretations of the texts.
How can you explain thousand of denominations if everything is so clear?
The problem starts when people interoperate the actual texts to fit their own needs.
I think this debate is useless as you keep changing the words of the texts.We are not talking about "texts" The issue is the 10 commandments.
"I am your god. You can have no god but me" is clearly saying "I am the best god".
It is the only one. there is no best out of one.Are you now claiming that Jehovah is not the best god?
See above."You can have no god but me"
Nope.and "Do not worship false idols" clearly means "Worship only me".
No. I claim that god clearly explains, that there are no other gods.Or are you now claiming that god allows us to worship other gods as well as him?
What do you mean by "holy"?"Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy"
No it is not. where does it say you need to worship god on the sabbath? or for that matter... worship god at all?is clearly saying there is a special day dedicated to worshiping god.
It did. It is clearly stated several times and also detailed why.Perhaps you believe that god didn't make the sabbath day special?