10 Commandments for JohnnyB

[JohnnyB1993]

I eagerly await your response.

2.
Now, some thoughts on the NT.  I will admit I do believe that Paul is the author of the 13 NT books traditionally attributed to him.  However, for the sake of discussion I will side with you and presume that we can only say that it is more likely than not that Paul is definitely the author of 6 of the 13 NT books attributed to him.  So in regards to the chronological order of some of the NT books, here is a very brief image of what I believe:

The 6 books written by Paul: Anytime before 64 A.D (the year Paul died).  Also if you think it is necessary for such details, what are the 6 books of the NT that you think Paul wrote?
The remaining 6 books not written by Paul:  I cannot say as of right now.  I would assume between 50-80 A.D. perhaps but honestly I am not sure.
Hebrews:  Between 65-95 A.D. 
James:  Probably written by James the brother of Jesus who was martyred in 61 A.D.
1 and 2 Peter: Anytime before Peter’s crucifixion in 64 A.D.
1, 2, 3 John: Probably 60-90 A.D.
Jude: Probably 60-90 A.D.

The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles:
Acts:  Being a book of history concerning Christians and Jews in the 1st century, Acts was probably written before 62 A.D.   Acts would have more likely than not mentioned the destruction of the Jewish temple (70 A.D), Peter’s death (65 A.D.), Paul’s death (64 A.D.) and James’ death (62 A.D.).
Mark, Matthew, Luke:  Written before 70 A.D.  All three mention Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Jewish temple (Mark 13:1; Matthew 24:1; Luke 21:6).  Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, and if Acts was written before 62 A.D. then the Gospel of Luke was written sometime earlier than that. Keep in mind that Mark and Matthew are thought to be written a bit before Luke. 
John: I will accept that John’s Gospel did not primarily about recording historical events.  So even though the destruction of the Jewish temple is not mentioned, I would date this gospel to around the 80-90’s A.D.

Textual Criticism:
You- Also, you need to be aware that not a single autograph (that's what the students of textual criticism term the original authors of a work) of any of the NT exists, so we cannot be sure what the authors actually wrote. 
Me â€" I respectfully disagree.  We have very good manuscript evidence to say that it is more likely than not that the words in our NT books today are the original words written by the authors 2000 years ago.  Please see below:  Following your logic I assume we also completely disregard everything in the Illiad and all writings of Suetonius?

New Testament:  # of manuscripts today: 24000+     Oldest Manuscript:  300+/- years from original (complete text) and 70+/- years from original (fragments of text)

Suetonius: # of manuscripts today: 200 +/-   Oldest Manuscript:  800 +/- years from original

Illiad: # of manuscripts 1,757    Oldest Manuscript: 500 +/- years from original

“There was never a time when any one man or group of men controlled the text of the NT. All assertions regarding adding doctrines, changing theologies, removing teachings etc are without merit. The Christian church was a persecuted minority without power to enforce a uniform textual transmission as in Islam.” â€" Dr. James White in his debate against Bart Ehrman “Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?”

3.

YOU- Did he even suggest any churches be built?  Did he visit churches and preach?  No.  He wandered the land gathering his flock as he went.  He taught on the fly.  Did he demand money?  No, he demanded that those who had money give it all away and follow him.  So, would Jesus approve of any church on the face of the earth today?  What do you think?  I think not.  He would be active in trying to destroy them. 
ME â€" If there are any churches whose acts and behaviours are against what Jesus taught, then I agree that Jesus would try and stop that church’s behaviour if He were on Earth today. However, your statements seem to miss some key points.  It doesn’t matter if Jesus would destroy every church today.  If Jesus were on Earth today He would be pleased with the people who worship Him and consider Him their Lord and saviour.  So your argument does not seem to have much merit considering what I have just said.

Also you still seem to think that Jesus literally instructs every Christian to give up ALL their money and follow Him.  This is overlooking the passage of the story regarding the rich young ruler.  The literal point is not that EVERY Christian needs to give up all their money to follow Jesus.  The teaching is for people who look towards money as their ‘god’.  If money is your true ‘god’ then Jesus wants you to give up.  Another example; if romantic love is your one true ‘god’ in life then Jesus would want you to give up that too.   The complete fulfilment and sense of purpose that people seek in trying to get money, power, and a romantic love partner cannot actually give you any of those things.  Jesus is trying to say that only He can be your one true love.  Nothing else.

[Mike Cl]

I may have underestimated the breadth and scope of the information regarding the questions I asked.  Sorry about that.  Anyways you address some interesting points,
1.
I first would just like to point out that my conversion to Christianity really began from evaluating the two biggest questions that I believe face mankind.  1.  Does God exist?  2.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?  Of the arguments given from both Christian and atheist philosophers, I have actually found the evidence for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection the more plausible explanations regarding these questions.  Before I attempt to address your most recent comments, I have another question in which I am very curious to see your point of view.  Do you really think that the supernatural is impossible?  If so, could you please provide some evidence regarding your claim?

Johnny, those are the two questions I asked myself, as well.  Yet I came up with the exact opposite answer.  The evidence (or lack thereof) lead me to think there is no god and that Jesus was a myth--not even a real man.  I find no evidence of any god of any stripe.  In each and every case that I have studied a particular god--yes, including God--the evidence suggests to me god was a creation of a particular society or group--man-made in other words.  God filled certain needs for that group.  If an invisible god actually existed, he/it would have to make his presence known somehow.  And why would that god chose a sneaky way--would it not be obvious to all, no matter when or where that person was born?  You see, all god's are territorial.  None are universal.  The Jew/Christian god appeared only in the Middle East and Aftica.  Not it North or South America or Australia or Europe.  That is kind of odd for a universal god.  I find no evidence of any god revealing himself/herself to any large number of people in different places in the same time frame. 

Supernatural--god would have be that; beyond or outside nature.  Since I see no evidence of any kind for a god, how can I think it exists?  And I see no evidence of there being anything beyond or other than the natural world.  From the start of this universe to its end, it will consist of substance that can be seen and experienced--even substance I would call invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist by scientific instruments or can be tested somehow.  So, yes, the supernatural is impossible.  I have not seen a shred of evidence that it is possible.  I have no proof of a test that I can point to that demonstrates there is not supernatural--but there is not a shred of evidence that there is the supernatural.  I also have not a shred of proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist--does that mean I should hold out the possibility that she does exist? 

So, that is the intro to why I do not believe in any god--I could go on, but for now you get the idea.  As for Jesus, I have more and better evidence (for me, anyway) to think that Jesus was not a real person but the mythical (myth, btw, does not equate to fairy tale or legend, but to the conveyance of a moral or character sketch of importance to a society) man.  He not only did not rise from the dead (which is not a unique feat for him, for he is only one of many such mythical dying and rising divine characters from history), he was not real.  So, he could not be supernatural either.  No more than Osiris can.  You see, Johnny, I can make up all sorts of invisible characters in my head, breath life into them if I was a talented story teller or great author (Rolwing invented Harry Potter and many, many see him as almost being real.)  How do you prove that Harry is not, indeed alive somewhere? 

Once again, Johnny, you tap into a subject that could take up books.  But that is fine with me--better too much than not enough.  And thanks for your reply. 

[Mike Cl]

Knowing that Jesus suffered and died for me on the cross (even though He could have told me to screw off) makes me WANT to put my faith in God.  Out of love for what Jesus has done for me, I know try and do good works because I believe that God has already given me salvation through Jesus' deeds.  So that is my perception of Hell; I have also never came across a priest who used the device of Hell against me to say 'you must give us money or you'll burn in Hell'! But thats obviously not to say that those types of priests are not out there. 

Ok feel free to critique now.  Oh and also, I am not a creationist, I think the Genesis creation stories are allegorical representations of the creation of the world and humanity.  Regardless, however God did it, I do believe God created the universe.

Nope, I won't critique your beliefs.  I will ask questions about the why of them, but your beliefs are yours--and I will offer why I think the way I do.  We can each do with that info as we wish.

About Genesis and the two stories of creation.  You think they are allegorical?  Why?  And how do you know which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are factual?  Why two creation stories?  Which one is the real one, if any?  Is the book of Daniel real or allegorical?  Why?  Could not the entire bible be allegorical?  Why or why not?  Could not Paul's writings be allegorical?

As to fear--I'm not suggesting that the church or the priesthood uses fear is childish ways.  First, fear is not a 'bad' feeling.  Fear keeps me from jumping off roofs for fun and games.  It keeps me from taking foolish risks.  Fear is useful.  It is a survival tool that is very useful.  But like all things it can be misused and abused.  Political parties in this country love to use fear to whip the people up about one thing and another.  I am not suggesting that the church even uses fear in that obvious way--tho some do.  No, it is interwoven into the fabric of their theology.  It is a backdrop of all they teach.  The minister does not need to slap you up-side your head with fear.  It is all around you.  Always present.  For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven.  The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell.  There is no other place to go.  There is no third choice--there is not 'I don't want to play' button offered.  You have to do this according to god's rules--period.  For if you don't the only outcome is hell.  And that is free will????  So, you see, the hierarchy that grew up around your religion has fear being an integral part of that religion--it is never forgotten; never really ignored.  The Fear is so powerful that it does not even need to be spoken about.  (BTW, have you ever done a historical study of hell--the word and the concept?  It is an interesting study.)

I gotta run--thanks again for your response--quite remarkable for a strong Christian such as yourself--at least in my experience on boards.

[JohnnyB1993]

You- Supernatural--god would have be that; beyond or outside nature.  Since I see no evidence of any kind for a god, how can I think it exists?  And I see no evidence of there being anything beyond or other than the natural world.  From the start of this universe to its end, it will consist of substance that can be seen and experienced--even substance I would call invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist by scientific instruments or can be tested somehow.  So, yes, the supernatural is impossible.  I have not seen a shred of evidence that it is possible.  I have no proof of a test that I can point to that demonstrates there is not supernatural--but there is not a shred of evidence that there is the supernatural.  I also have not a shred of proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist--does that mean I should hold out the possibility that she does exist? 

Me â€" Few things in this paragraph that I am confused about.  You clearly state that God would have to be ‘outside of nature’.  By default then I think you and I would agree that any method used to try and detect God’s existence would be in vain.  After all, all of our scientific methods involve utensils that are within nature and are thus used to measure things that are also within nature.  So using natural methods to try and locate a supernatural being would be committing a serious categorical mistake in my opinion.  This is not to say that there can never be evidence for God’s existence, but rather, absolutely proving or disproving the existence of God would be almost impossible.   Considering the Invisible Pink Unicorn, there is evidence that we would expect to measure and observe if such a creature really did exist.  The unicorn (can it really be pink by the way if its invisible?) would be a part of the natural world and so it would probably have predictable behaviours interacting within the world (eating grass, footprints etc).  The invisible unicorn could still be detected because it is interacting within the world in a predictable way.  Many identities exist in this manner such as the force of gravity and magnetism.  We cannot see these forces but they all act in predictable ways within the natural world.  Therefore I do not liken the comparison of God to an invisible animal.  I suppose I would conclude that you may be committing the ‘absence of evidence must mean evidence of absence’ fallacy.  It may seem like the supernatural is impossible to you, but I am not sure if you can conclude with 100% certainty that your statement is true.  Rather the supernatural may very well be impossible to detect via natural equipment but the supernatural could still very well exist.

You-  For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven.  The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell.

Me- My response is more of a psychological question I suppose.  I am just rather curious on how you can explain my condition of ‘having faith in Jesus’.  The reason why I bring this up is because I am curious by it myself, and also because I think you may have misunderstood my position on ‘Hell’.  You say that I want to follow the rules of God so that I can get into Heaven, but I am trying to tell you that is not actually the case (for me personally).  I agree, many Christians try to do good works so that they can get into Heaven.  I do not view my position in the same light.  Rather, I have faith that Jesus’ death completely paid the debt for all my past sins and all of my future sins.  Therefore, I am actually already going to Heaven because of my faith in Christ.  I believe that I do not need to do any more good works to get into Heaven because J   esus has already lived the perfect life for me.  However, I am honestly telling you that I STILL try and follow all of the Ten Commandments to the best of my abilities.  So I actually find my behaviour rather strange.  To put it in a more simple way, if Hell did not exist, (and everyone went to Heaven no matter what they did), I would continue to try and follow the laws of God just out of love for what Jesus did for me on the cross.  Not sure if you have further comments on that, but I did want to clear up that I do NOT do good works to get into Heaven.  I do good works for God’s sake, not for my sake.  Isiah 64:6 “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment”.

[Solomon Zorn]

Absence of evidence, after 2000 or more years of humans looking into the subject, is indeed evidence of absence. It is not empirical proof of absence, but it is most definitely evidence.

[Mike Cl]

Johnny- â€" Few things in this paragraph that I am confused about.  You clearly state that God would have to be ‘outside of nature’.  By default then I think you and I would agree that any method used to try and detect God’s existence would be in vain.  After all, all of our scientific methods involve utensils that are within nature and are thus used to measure things that are also within nature.  So using natural methods to try and locate a supernatural being would be committing a serious categorical mistake in my opinion.

Mike---Yes, it would not be possible to find proof of an other than natural thing, including god.  What I find so very strange about people who believe in a supernatural god is that they don't need proof.  This god is supposed to have created a race of material beings and insist that they worship him and follow his rules.  How are we to follow rules that we cannot hope to see or know?  How does that god communicate to those he created?  But, you say, 'we have scripture.'  Which scripture are you referring to?  Every religion known to man has scripture.  How am I supposed to know which one is the 'real' one?  For a god, this is incredibly sloppy work.  but it is something that people would come up with--people who wanted a pipeline to god to control those around him. 

Johnny--- This is not to say that there can never be evidence for God’s existence, but rather, absolutely proving or disproving the existence of God would be almost impossible.

Mike--Once again, why does god make this whole process so murky and difficult to follow?  Seems pretty simple for the all powerful creator to find an efficient way of telling his creation what the creator wants.  What we have are multiple religions and multiple scriptures.  That smacks of people using those things as tools to gain control over others.

Johnny-- I suppose I would conclude that you may be committing the ‘absence of evidence must mean evidence of absence’ fallacy.  It may seem like the supernatural is impossible to you, but I am not sure if you can conclude with 100% certainty that your statement is true.  Rather the supernatural may very well be impossible to detect via natural equipment but the supernatural could still very well exist.

Mike---The absence of evidence does not mean there is no evidence.  I agree.  Just because I cannot find evidence does not mean it cannot exist.  But there are times when the absence of evidence is indeed proof that evidence does not exist.  There has not been one shred of physical evidence to lead one to think there is a god of any kind.  So, with 100% certainty I can say that there has never been any physical proof that a god exists.  And I can say with 100% certainty that the supernatural does not exist; no proof of that has ever been shown to be true.  And I can also say with 100% accuracy and certainty that there are thousands of religions on earth that claim to be the one true religion with the one true god supported by the one true scripture.  That all leads me to say with 100% certainty that god does not exist--not any god.  It is all man-made.

Mike-  For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven.  The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell.

Johnny-- I agree, many Christians try to do good works so that they can get into Heaven.  I do not view my position in the same light.  Rather, I have faith that Jesus’ death completely paid the debt for all my past sins and all of my future sins.  Therefore, I am actually already going to Heaven because of my faith in Christ.  I believe that I do not need to do any more good works to get into Heaven because Jesus has already lived the perfect life for me.  However, I am honestly telling you that I STILL try and follow all of the Ten Commandments to the best of my abilities.  So I actually find my behaviour rather strange.  To put it in a more simple way, if Hell did not exist, (and everyone went to Heaven no matter what they did), I would continue to try and follow the laws of God just out of love for what Jesus did for me on the cross.  Not sure if you have further comments on that, but I did want to clear up that I do NOT do good works to get into Heaven.  I do good works for God’s sake, not for my sake.  Isiah 64:6 “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment”.

Mike--I find it commendable that you want to do good for your fellow man.  And that you do that even if you were not going to heaven and even if hell were not in the picture.  I sometimes get the idea that many Christians would burn, pillage and rape if not for the fear of God and hell; and the desire to go to heaven.  That that fear is all that restrains them--why do I get that feeling?  Because they want to know what keeps me, as an atheist, from doing just that.  Why don't I just lie, cheat, steal and destroy on a whim, since I don't have any guidance from scripture or god.  So, Johnny, let me say this to you--I am not going to heaven or hell--they don't exist.  I don't fear god--gods don't exist.  Yet the best feelings in my life is when I lend a helping hand to my fellow human.  Yep--I simply like to help because that is the legitimate goal of a society and that is what makes me feel good.  I don't do good because god told me to, but because my parents taught me to and because I've learned they were right. When I die that will be it--gone forever; my only wish is I have this world just a tiny bit better than when I entered it. 

Johnny, have you ever studied the process of how your scripture, your Bible was formed?  How it was canonized?  You should.  That will show you how god had nothing to do with it--it is all a human construct. I don't mean a surface study with one author or book--you must find out who has written that the Bible is 100% accurate and how it was formed is gods plan.  And you have to find authors who believe the opposite and one who believes somewhere in the middle.  Cover all angles.  Then figure out for your self what is accurate.  But that would take a great deal of courage for a strong believing Christian.

And Johnny, I do not find your behavior strange, for most of the people in your church, your religion  are good people wanting to do what is good for themselves, their families, their neighbors and the world.  What I find destructive in your religion is the hierarchy that teaches you these falsehoods and myths as the Truth.  What do they gain from it--wealth and power!  As an experiment, research the top people in the structure of your denomination and see if any of them are close to being poor in any material way.  I will tell you now, without knowing your denomination that you will find nobody.  Just as you will not find any congressmen/women who are poor.  It is about power and wealth. 

Johnny, consider Mark 10:21--21  Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.  Johnny, do you know of anyone who has done that?  Any church leader?  Any church member?  Have you? 

And BTW, Johnny, thanks for your reply.  I think if I were to meet you in person, I'd like your company. :)

[stromboli]

Question to Mike- is it more or less fun playing with your food if it doesn't know its being played with?

[Mike Cl]

Question to Mike- is it more or less fun playing with your food if it doesn't know its being played with?

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
If it doesn't know, but then it slowly dawns on them.  Then the scrambling is fun to watch. :)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
If it doesn't know, but then it slowly dawns on them.  Then the scrambling is fun to watch. :)

Yes, that is definitely the best. To watch that process of slÍ€oÍ¢w̨ rÌ´ȩ̷͟al̸͞iÍ€zÍžatÍœi҉̴͞o̸͜n̢͟͟,Ì...Í'̏Ì'Í'̝͎͚̣̩̦ ̮̼ͬu̵nÍ—Í,,Ì,,̊̇ͪͯ͢tÍ,,̆Í'Í,,̰̰̺̼̤̺͠i̷̤̟̖ͤͫÍ...̼̘lÌ...̐Ì"Ì»Í"Í"ÍŽ Ì,̵͖̦̰̮̥̘̗͛t̮͍ͬ̆ͥÍ"̟̣̩̪h͈͖͙̦̜eÌ'Í®Í'͕̮͝Í"͙͍͚̬y͉͙̯̌ͬ̀̚ Í,ͪ̉ͥÌ...̷̝̜̰̎rÌ'Ì"͐ͧ̽Ì...̛͙̹ͯÍ"̳eÌŠÌ...Ì"̢̺̼͙͊̿͌ͥaͭ́Í'Ì'ͤ̿l̽̊Í,̀ͪÍ'̦͕͢iͬ͐Ì,,Í,,̖̍̚z̧̏̀eÍ,̞̰̙͖̤͌̉̃̎͗ t̆͐̾Ì...̲̋Í"Ì­Í"͚͎hÍ,,̨̝̪̩̃Í"̱̹͇͍̼eÌ,̬̜̖̪̥̭ͬ͗̋ͧͨ̆̈͢ỷ̛̦̦̥͕͗ͬ̏̀'ͭ̿ͬ͗͛Í,̢̙̝͎̲͋ͨ̐͜͟ṙ̿Ì,Ì,̙͎̼́ḙ̵ͣͮͫ̍ ̭̟̜̠̝͚̳͚̩͆̽́ͩb̭͚͛̐ͩ́Í"̤aÌ,Ì¿Ì"̎̍ͦÌ'̵̴̱̬̲͎͍̖c̪̰̦̮͖̥̮̐͆̊̾͟͠kͫͧ̿ͪÍ'Í,Ì"̪̫͗̽̀̕eÌŽÍ¥Í,ÌŠÍ,͕ͥ́̀͠Í...̭̘̰̱dͯͧÍ,̉ͯ̆ͣ͏̶̣̦͇̠͎͘ Ì"͆Ì'ͧ̌̇̕͏̤͖̮̻̙́iͧÍ'̋ͨÌ"̭̰̖̳̤̟̽ͦ͢͠͡n͗ͤ̇Í,̹͖͎͆̌͗̍͟ṫÍ,,̷͕̲̭̠ͪ͐ͭ̎͠oÌŠÌ¿ÌŽÍ,ͨͤÌ...Ì...̸̟̦̦ͨ͝ ͧ̃̀Í...͉͈ä̎Ì,,̵̷̪̬̪̇ͨ̐̆̽ͬ ͐̋̋̆ͩ̚Í,,̖̤̩̘̺̯̲̪͕ͭͤcÍ'ͥͪͪͥ͛̽Í,,̜͖̮̺̗oͯÌ'̏̋̉Í,͈̲͇̲̭͇͍͙͉r̃Ì...̾ͧ̀ͨÌ"͉̙́̀Í"Í"̙̪̼̞n̉ͮ͋Ì'̤͙͎̼̮̪̺̤̆̌͢e̓Ì"Í'̡̏ͭͩ̆́͏̱̣̱rÍ,Ì'͐Í'̴͇̰͍̺͛ͣ͡ Ì'̰̖̗͍̬̎͝w͇̗̥͕ͯ͋͞i̸͎̪̫͙͎ͧͥ̾ͧ̌͐ͬtͤ̐͋ͥÍ,,̧̟̖̯̫̱͐͘hͦÍ'̶͉̣̊ͣ͋͌͗̕ ̀̊͐͗̾Í'Ì"Í Í"Ì–Í"n͙̹͈̯̤͍̪͇ͤ̌̾͊̆ͮ̌͡Í"ỏͥ͌ͦ́̐̚Í'̴̧̡̟̜̠̖̫̬̊ Í'Í'Ì"̃͐͗̚̚Ì'̧̢̝̺̭̥̥͖̤̯́w̧̢̭̞̲̲̗̻͗ͣ̋́aÍ'ͦͯ̾Ì,Í'̖̾Í...͎̪yͫ͆̏Ì...̴̭͉̘͍̮̜̱̇̋ͧ͆ ͆̇ͨ͐ͯͧ̚͘Í"̤̘oͪÌ'͈̜̃͊͟Í"̳͈ŭ͖̫͇͐̐͡t͗̃̉Ì,Ì,̰͙͙̟͇ͫ,Í,,ͯ͗̇Í'̴ͫ̊̐́҉̢̺Í...͕̮̤̹̦̮̟͉̮̩̞͍ ̷̨̐ͣ̾̃̉̏̆̚̕͟Í"̟̯aÌ'̀̾͗̈͏̢͈̘̟̥͚͖͉̰͍̼̬̺́͘nͯ͆Ì...Í¥Í'̨̧͎͎̠̰̜ͤ̈͘͢͝Í"̲Í"͚͉̙̦̤͕̬dͨÌ"ͣ͏̶̵̣͉͙͝Í...Ì»Í...̝ ̸̸̷̸͚͈̭͆̉͋ͩ̆̿̚͝yÌ¿Í,,̇͗̌ͤͫͥ̏̀Í'̃̊͊ͯÌ,̡̞͚̞̼̏͆͡Í...̮̝͕oÌ¿Í'̾Í'̈ͧ͌Ì...ÍŠÍ'̛̝͖͆̀̕͢͞Í"̮̝̩̮uÌ'ͪ͛͐͛Í,,Í,Ì,,̴̖̟̞̾̌̆͊ͫͪͧͩ͋͢Í...̼̪̜͕͕͕̦̺Í"̤̝͙̜̳̳ ͩͧ̆ͦÍ'ͧ̊̚Í'̋͊̇ͤ҉̸̥̜̩̬͙̰̘̰̯̝͉͇̹̻̩̲̟̘͞ḟͣ͌ͬ́̆̾ͣÍ'̵̢ͦ͘͠Í"Í"Ì«eÍ©Í—Ì,Ì‹Í'ͫͨÌ...Í—Ì'̴̹̼̳̮̘͌ͥ̆ͧ̈͢͝͡a͊̃̿Ì'̵̢̻̹͈̥̯̝̺̗͚̟̭̠̀̾̽͠sÍ,,͐̆͊Í,,Í,,̇̀Ì,,̴̴̺̫ͥ͞Í"̱̩t̽̋ͩͬ̌ͬÌ...̸̷̴̸̨̦̪̝̣̦͇̦̯͕̻̞͇͎̬̳̹͋ͧ̓͛̽̌ͯ̓ Ì...ͣͪ͐ͫ͋̈͌͆Ì"Ì"ͦÌ'͗ͯ̇Í'̧͋͏̣̫̺o̶̡͈ͨͪ̓̋͠Í"Í"͖̠̼Í...̲̭̹̦̖̣̪nÍ,,̃ͬ̏̏Ì"̞͍̹̝̝͚̗̭̳͗ͥ̌͘͞Í...̙̞̻͎̫̩̳̰ ̛̜͖̬̖̭̤̳͕͍̳̺̺̻̟̪̎͋̊ͥ̈ͥ̕tͣ͛̃ͮ͌ͤͫͭͬͧ̿ͦ̌͘͟҉͎̠̖̼̝̝hͨÌ,̷͋͛̐ͥͧͬ͞͠Í"̦̜̘Í"eͤ͛ͥͥ͋Ì"̈ͤÍ'Í,̓Í,̶̡̡̪͍̙̯̮ͨ͐ͭ̀́iÌ...͐ͪ̈ͫ̾̚Ì...̽̽̍ͪÍ,̀͘҉̸̼̺̖̩͖͠rÍ,,̆Í'ͤÌ"̈Í'ͨ̏Í'ͯ̃Ì"Ì...̷̸̧̥͙͎̝̰̠͉̲͐̃ͩ͆ͨÍ...̭̹ Ì"͌ͩ̍̊̎ͮ͠͏̜̟̠͜Í"̭͕͇͇̥͇͈̳̹̬̖͚fÌ'̀̊Ì"̡̢̨̬͉̲́͘Í"͕̪̦Í"Ì®e͊͌͐ͫ͆Ì'̷̴̢̢̭͍̪̟͖̩͍͈͕͜aÍŠÌŽÍ¥Í,̢̡͋̆͠͏̮͎̯̥̫͍̼̪Í"̩͎̪̪͇̲̝̜Í...rÍŒÍ,͛ͩ͋ͣͮÌ...̏̌ͨ͌́Í,Í,,͢͡͡Í...̮͕̙̮̺̳̮̺̗.ͪͦ́Í,Ì'͆Í,̹̰͖͙̩͚͇̺̖̮̼̜̣͕͖̤͖̜͖͜

*cough cough*

Ugh, excuse me, I started to reveal my true form for a second there. Gonna have to keep a better eye on that.

[KingJ]

5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.

Mike what scripture are you using for the underlined?

[Mike Cl]

Mike what scripture are you using for the underlined?

A King James copied from the internet.  I don't remember the site now.  Simply googled it.  Why?  What difference does it make?

[KingJ]

A King James copied from the internet.  I don't remember the site now.  Simply googled it.  Why?  What difference does it make?

The rest of the commandments you mention are not really an issue. The underlined is. I would like to know the  context. It seems completely naked at the moment.

[Mike Cl]

The rest of the commandments you mention are not really an issue. The underlined is. I would like to know the  context. It seems completely naked at the moment.

I'm not sure what you mean.  It was copied in total from that web site and from a copy of the KJ bible.  How more dressed up do you need it?

[KingJ]

I'm not sure what you mean.  It was copied in total from that web site and from a copy of the KJ bible.  How more dressed up do you need it?

Well I am guessing you quoted Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

13:1-10 In remembrance of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, both of man and of beast, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of bondage, the first-born males of the Israelites were set apart to the Lord. By this was set before them, that their lives were preserved through the ransom of the atonement, which in due time was to be made for sin. They were also to consider their lives, thus ransomed from death, as now to be consecrated to the service of God.

Note it does not say '''sacrifice'''. Quite a humungous word blunder wouldn't you agree?

[Mike Cl]

Well I am guessing you quoted Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

13:1-10 In remembrance of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, both of man and of beast, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of bondage, the first-born males of the Israelites were set apart to the Lord. By this was set before them, that their lives were preserved through the ransom of the atonement, which in due time was to be made for sin. They were also to consider their lives, thus ransomed from death, as now to be consecrated to the service of God.

Note it does not say '''sacrifice'''. Quite a humungous word blunder wouldn't you agree?

No need to guess--read the entire thread and you will see that I posted all three versions of the 10 commandments. They are posted and credited in full in the thread.