Ten Commandments are not so simple - several traditions, and the actual list which is often sidestepped

It's just ironic how adamant people can be about putting up monuments to these things, and it's not even clear what they are talking about.  Even more ironic is that all these traditions ignore or sidestep the actual 10 commandments that was placed within the Art of the Covenant, found at Exodus 34 (shown in last column in the table above).  [Originally created by me and posted on Reddit.]

UPDATE: I've updated the Ten Commandments spreadsheet based on corrected information provided by this video, 7 Secrets of The Hebrew Ten Commandments.  From here on, the Ten Commandments table will be provided on a Google Sheets spreadsheet.  I haven't updated the image above, so the Google Sheets spreadsheet should now be used as the primary reference.

Travelling in Japan - Day 2 (part 2)

For much of the afternoon and early evening, our group was on foot, exploring temples in Kyoto. We walked to Ryosen, Kiyomizu, and Yasaka temples.

 Tokyo and Kyoto are very humid right now, with varying clouds and clear sky as the days progressed.  Portions were also very crowded.  It's very easy to unintentionally bump into people.

I don't know if this is a daily thing, or we visited Kyoto at the right time, but there were a lot of Japanese dressed in traditional attire, both men and women.  It kinda reminded me of Renfair in the US.

Quick view of the Bible's anti-"pro-life" stand

In the case of abortion, the bible isn't clear at all. What is does say is that the fetus/unborn/still birth (however translated by the various attempts), is worthless and never experiences anything at all. This is not one of those "therefore" attempts to get the bible to say something that it doesn't. This is actually what the bible says. No deduction or interpretation needed. In fact, the bible considers this as such a fundamental matter of fact, the bible uses it as justification to espouse a whole other point. Then, there's the law that allows parents to request to have their children (presumably all the way into adulthood) killed just because that cannot handle them. Oh, yeah, there is that one law that treats the accidental killing of an unborn by someone other than the husband in a completely civil matter...not murder all at, but rather a small fine paid to the husband, on par with what we would pay for a traffic fine these days. The presumes that it is indeed the husband's right to end the pregnancy himself, since he is treated at the owner of it, much as he would have to right to kill his sheep for the next meal. Here's the best part of all, the bible does in fact actually mention abortion directly! And you know what? The bible not only doesn't ban abortion (nor call the act murder), but the bible actually provides rites (the procedure) for how abortions should be conducted. The bible is completely conflicted on this whole idea of "abortion", especially when someone tries to falsely argue that the bible somehow forbids them.

Notion of Creation is not a theory, and scientific theories aren't proposed notions

Bible based knowledge does not lead to new scientific knowledge.  People used to think the Bible was useful to learn about nature.  They did try to use it as a guide to make new discoveries.  However, over time, scientists started finding out that the Bible just gets so much wrong.    The Bible literally has almost every major point wrong about the universe, from its description of Earth as a flat world with a tent over head to its description of rabbits as cud chewers. The value of the Bible is it's a general moral guide taken in the context within the times each portion was originally written/re-written. Taking it for more than that is truly grasping as straws.  People discovered the hard way that the Bible was not a good starting point to learn about nature. That's why the practice of referring to the Bible as a source for science was stopped over time.

So, to that point, Creationism based on the Bible isn't a theory. It is a failed notion. A theory isn't just a proposal. It is a proven working model of the Universe with a lot of peer reviewed data, from which accurate predictions can be made. To extend this further, those predictions often create new areas of exploration and further growth of knowledge, directly leading to new technologies, either in the exploration of the theory or as a result of knowledge learned from the theory. Last major invention spurred by Bible belief was the telescope, and use of that technology disproved that belief; the creator being forced to recant his statements about reality and live under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

On the other hand, Darwin didn't create the Theory of Evolution, he proposed the core concepts based on his observations. Evolution was born out of the peer review process with much more independently collected data. Evolution wasn't a theory until there was a massive amount of data and extraneous amount of analysis of that data, from which the natural model was molded.

Why is Creationism not a theory? Because it doesn't have one iota of this. The supporters want a magical shortcut, using circular arguments and cherrypicked research of other people's works in the form of anecdotes and impressive looking fake equations. No actual proven predictions come from Creationsm nor from its child contrivance called Intelligent Design. Creationism is the end of knowledge, not its birth. That is why is it not a theory and it is not science. Now, that said, the challenge is always there for Creationism supporters to objectively collect data and test hypotheses. Even if they don't prove their hypotheses, at least new knowledge would come from that. This process has yet to be undertaken by Creationist (and Intelligent Design believers), or if it has, results have been hidden.

Examples of observations that would grow knowledge along the Creationist track:

• Find DNA in mammals that cannot be traced back to a common ancestor or introduced by some other natural process.
• Show completely distinct lifeforms with no ancestry at all. 
• Find data that offers new evidence to reinterpret apparent evolution in our own species, from malaria resistance to lactose persistence.
• Additionally, find data that better explains why pre-agricultural humans did not have cavities and modern humans with no cavities is almost unheard of? (Hint, that has been very well explained with a recent study of mouth-dwelling bacteria and their evolution to adapt to our changing diets, along with our own evolution for such too.)

These examples cannot be explained with anecdotes.  Hard evidence has to be presented from scientific studies using the Scientific Method.  Research doesn't count for this.  New evidence has be presented.  That evidence must be collected and peer reviewed.  Until that happens, Creation Notion can never be put on equal footing with any Scientific Theory, especially the Theory of Evolution.

Real Soldier vs. Fake Soldier

I am nearly literally sickened when I see a Christian preachers on TV, who are watched by hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans, and who claim that Christians are being persecuted in America.  Here's what's really happening.  Just for he record, this has been reported equally by Christian sources.

Atheist Soldier and the discrimination thereof

But then, here's what other Christian sources claim is going on in the military.  

The Soldier

It's one step more ridiculous than the bully who forces you to hit yourself and asks "Why are you hitting yourself?"  This situation is the bully hitting you directly and saying "Stop hitting my fist with your face!"  Not only that, this story outrageously insults our armed forces by even using them as such an example in the first place!  Disgusting.

Senseless Sunday: skin deep lunacy

• The next leap year where Feburaury does not have a full moon is 2572¹.



• The current definition of the term "Blue Moon" dates back to March 1946, in which Sky and Telescope magizine mistakenly misinterpreted the definition of the term from 1937 Maine Farmers' Almanac. "Blue Moon" originally referred to the third Full Moon in a season which has four Full Moons².



• Atheists outnumber all but nine organized religions in the World.



• The skin of a polar bear is black. Though the fur appears white, it's actually clear.



• More often, you will use more gas making a left turn than making a right turn.

Only in Amish land

Leave it to an Amish splinter group to conduct home invasions where they only steal hair, seriously!

Amish Men's Beards Cut Off; Police Suspect Amish-On-Amish Violence

Cross-country trip - day 2

Day two of my journey across America was met with viciously perfect weather in Salt Lake City, UT. I didn't have time to do any real sightseeing, so I did Japanese tourist-style sightseeing (I drove by a couple of important sites, and took a picture). I did go to a little hole-in-the-wall place called Bruges Waffles & Frites (of Man V Food fame). They serve waffles Belgian-style, and have double-fried fries called frites. My waffle was good, though for the price, it didn't seem like enough food.

The drive eastward from Salt Lake City into the mountains is beautiful. The mountains are as green as I can imagine. They are offset with gorgeous white caps of remaining snow. The drive was windy and fun. There was barely any traffic.

Wyoming was a pleasant drive as well, for awhile. The mountains gave way to rocky hills. One hill looks as though it's a bunch of mountain trolls mooning the freeway (see the picture). Eventually, the Great Planes appeared. Let me tell you, the Great Planes are boring! This fact becomes even more important on the next day of my trip.

I stopped briefly in Cheyenne, WY before continuing on to Denver. Driving in the rural states is different from the urban states. The left lane on the freeway is really only for passing in the rural states. Don't hang out there. I travelled fairly close to speed limit for most of my drive through Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and even Colorado. I almost never got passed by anyone.

I didn't have enough time to do any sightseeing in Denver. That will have to wait for another time.

Largest building ever built *discovered* in Egypt

If ancient descriptions are correct, and if the recent discovery is what some think it to be, the lost Labyrinth of Egypt may be at Hawara. This was a massive temple that was described by many ancient authors, such as Herodotus, to house 3000 rooms. The walls of each room were filled will paintings and hieroglyphs. Some have presumed this labyrinth housed the lost Hall of Records, dispite other theories that place it under the Great Sphinx of Giza. I'm not going to go on about this. Just check the links.

Bible Self-invalidation

Its funny when the bible is read in parts, its easy to make general statements about the validity and unity of its overall message. However, when taken on the whole, its message just falls apart. As a child, I remember learning the scripture at Proverbs 30:5 that says that every word of God is true. Essentially, the message I was taught that this god can do anything except lie. By extension, the bible consists of his words, so the bible is true without exception.

The problem with this is that the bible's god does lie, and these lies are actually recorded in the bible. This would be irony if it wasn't unexpected. Isn't that ironic?

Several scriptures specifically say that their god either lied himself or caused others to lie, including 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. To reconcile this contradiction, believers in the bible will often just excuse it off with a comment like, "God cannot lie, but is able to cause others to either lie or tell a lie." Not only does this not explain the discrepancies where their god is actually said to lie, but it is completely illogical to make this distinction. Their god is said to speak to believers through prophets. If his prophets lie because of his inspiration, that is no different than himself telling the lie.

I don't point all this out to show that the bible is flawed. Its flawed nature is fact. It doesn't need to be pointed out unless someone starts trying to argue that it is some sort of perfect holy book. I point out the flaws to show that the bible cannot be used as justification for beliefs in gods. The god of the bible is just an idea that is used for agendas of individuals or groups of people. That god doesn't really exist; at least not in the way bible believers think.

Basic info on Documentary Hypothesis (origin of Torah)

Documentary Hypothesis (also known as JEDP) proposes that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch) represent a combination of documents from originally independent sources.

Development of the hypothesis arise from attempts to reconcile inconsistencies in the ancient texts of the Torah. According to the influential version of the hypothesis formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), there were four main sources, and one final redaction. These sources and the approximate dates of their composition were:

• J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah. (The name Yahweh begins with a J in Wellhausen's native German.) The writings where likely based on early oral and written sources, maybe even original from cultures outside of Israel.
• E, or Elohist, source; written c. 850 BCE in the northern kingdom of Israel. J and E may have been combined at some point after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE.
• D, or Deuteronomist, source; written c. 621 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform. P, or Priestly, source; written c. 450 BCE by Aaronid priests.
• R, or Redactor, source; written c. 400 BCE by the last editor(s) who combed the what was available from the previous sources to combine them in to the final Pentateuch. This editor may have been Ezra.
  

According to Wellhausen, the four sources present a picture of Israel's religious history, which he saw as one of ever-increasing centralization and priestly power. In effect, this exposes a de facto conspiracy by the individuals in the various eras to shape the documents to suit their contemporaneous needs.

Although rejected by most Judaism and Christian faiths (for fairly obvious reasons), modern forms of Wellhausen's original hypothesis have become the dominant scholarly view on the origin of the Pentateuch. Most contemporary Bible experts accept some form of the Documentary Hypothesis, and scholars continue to draw on Wellhausen's terminology and insights. In the area of New Testament scholarship, proposed solutions to the synoptic problem often bear a strong resemblance to the Documentary Hypothesis.

References:

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

Aetheism Ads

This entry is short and sweet. Check this out about Aetheist in Toronto.

Creationist say what? Nothing?

Arguements for Christian creationist beliefs can often be summed up with one word, "nothing". The linked site is a classic example for creatisionist to attempt to prove evolution is somehow in doubt by scientists. It pretty much just takes a bunch of quotes out of context and pins them together to form what appears to be one cohesive argument against the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The main problem with this, of course, is that these are not valid references. They are quotes taken out of context from a diverse, unrelated, outdated and very often unauthoritative sources.

Many times, they quote from reputable publications, but don't make it clear that these quotes are of quotes by the source to argue against creationism. In other words, it is creationists quoting creationists. They try to make the creationist seem as though they are scientists that is lamenting evolution.

Another trick is they quote scientists of unrelated fields. I am amazed how often an oft-handed comment by Einstein or Steven Hawkins is quoted as proof that scientists question the Theory of Evolution.

They also grab quotes from newsletters or other unvetted periodicals and present them as though they were creditably published.

So, in the end, they are just quoting a bunch of random comments in a way the becomes original research of their own, finding a conclusion that in no way is reasonable if the whole of their sources are read.

Fruitcake for Xmas

According to a recent Reuters report, a Christian biologist is suing Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for firing him because he believes against evolution (claiming civil liberties violation). This Christian "biologist" is now working for Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. This strikes me as a bit convenient. This guy gets a job at a respected institute and then reveals he believes against scientific fact after he's hired, and is now working at a religious institution? Hmm, sounds like a set up to me. I wouldn't be surprized if he applied at all the major places hoping to catch a big fish to bring this issue up (knowing that Liberty University or something similar would be available for him to fall back on). He prolly was already conspiring with his religious buddies before he even went to college to get his degree in biology.
Sorry to disappoint, a person who believes against scientific fact does not get protection under the Constitution and modern Civil Liberties as a protected class when it comes to a job that needs acknowledgement of scientific fact in order to perform required tasks, nor is someone that conspires against reality. A person can be fired for what they choose to say Not to mention the fact that believing against scientific fact precluded him from being able to perform his job at a scientific institution!
In good conscience, I don't know how he could call himself a biologist. I would go so far as to note that his biologist degree doesn't have validity if he decries the basis upon which it was based. If he really does believe against scientific fact, he should return his degree to the institution which issued it to him and obtain a new degree in Religious Studies or something.

"The Bible Way to Heaven"

The North Valley Baptist Church just recently left a little card stuffed into my front door. I must say at this point, all these religious people forcing their personally delivered junk mail through the door crack is annoying, and bad for my door frame's paint. If you feel you must leave something, just do what everyone else does and leave the item at my door step.

OK, so this card has a message. On one side, there's a directive to "Join us this Sunday!" for "Helpful Bible Teaching", "Christian Friendships", and "Exciting Gospel Singing". There's a picture of a life preserver with a sailboat in the background. The life preserver says "Lifeline Bible Class". There's also a lovely photo of what I guess to be the pastor and his family. Another photo below that shows what I guess to be the congregation that meets in "Room 214" at church. The only critical comments I'm going to say about this side of the card is that it is specifically geared to someone who is already Christian, yet most of the people in my neighborhood are more likely Buddhist, Hindu, other or nothing at all. The church isn't doing a good job at targeted marketing. It's the back side of the card that really drives this point home though.

On the back, there's 4 points that I guess are meant to cause someone to pray. At the end of the last point is a sample prayer. So, here's the review:

Point 1: "Recognize your condition". It quotes Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Then it makes an assumptive insult, "No one is good enough to go to Heaven on his own merit. No matter how much good we do, we still fall short." To someone that doesn't recognize Christian mythology (namely Buddhists, Hindus and other), this first point is both pointless and insulting. First, it assumes everyone has detailed knowledge of the Christian Heaven. It then says "Hey, you suck!" to anyone that wants to get into this Heaven. But, it assumes that anyone would want that. Without knowing much about it, I'm sure most readers of this card could care less. The card itself offers no reason to care, and in fact would put off some people from wanting anything to do with the Christian Heaven.

Point 2: "Realize the penalty for sin". It quotes Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..." It then makes a barely comprehensible statement, "Just as there are wages for good, there is punishment for wrong." Who gets paid for being good? Is this some one's job? If so, I want in on the deal! Wow, can you imagine getting a nice big, fat paycheck each week just for helping old ladies to cross the street? Of course, this is a nonsensical statement to try to draw some sort of contrast out of the bible quote. It continues, "The penalty for our sin is eternal death in a place called Hell." That's funny. Whoever wrote this card previously assumed a universal familiarity with the Christian Heaven, but now presumes a complete universal ignorance of the Christian Hell! It does all this by skewing the words of Romans 6:23 way beyond their intended meaning too! Romans Chapter 6 is speaking of one's life and death in a spiritual metaphoric sense (that is, you are called alive if you believe in Jesus, and you are called death if you don't). It's not talking about a literal life or death condition. If one finishes reading verse 23 one will find, "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This is obviously a metaphor since almost all Christian religions believe that one must die (in one way or another) in order to get to Heaven, so one's life cannot be literally eternal. It's funny how they didn't quote that part of the verse at this point, instead opting for dot dot dot (...) to leave the reader with the wrong impression.

Point 3: "Believe Christ died for you". It again quotes the book of Romans at 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Commendeth again? hehehe Again, they aren't doing a good job of knowing their audience. Most people in this neighborhood are not impressed by the gratuitous use of older English since they know English as a second language. Now about their comment, "Christ's great love for us was shown when He died on the cross to pay our sin debt." Huh? OK, here's the deal, when a Christian capitalizes a pronoun like "He", it means they think they are talking about God. So, Christ is God? God died? Why would God need to kill Himself (or allow Himself to be killed), effectively committing suicide? Wouldn't He just use his power to make things right without killing anyone? Why is suicide the solution to having a "sin debt" paid. Should I handle my credit card debt this way? What is sin anyway? This isn't explained by the card at all. It makes it seem like everyone sins and that sinning is bad. However, there is no qualification for what sin is. Even less explained is "sin debt".

Point 4: "Trust Christ alone as your Savior" It quotes the rest of Romans 6:23 (notice how it does this out of order to try to make the bible seem like it is saying something which is really isn't) "...But the gift of god is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." It then immediately quotes Romans 10:13 (again, out of order) "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The comment on the card is, "Everlasting life is a gift purchased by the blood of Jesus and offered freely to those who call upon Him by faith." I'm not so sure I'd put my faith in anyone that thinks suicide is a solution for anything. Besides that, everlasting life is not desired by the Buddhist or the Hindu who are more focused on living each life in succession to be free from this world once and for all (including both its associated "heaven" and "hell" attributes).

I guess the writer of the card thought they moved the holy spirit (a Christian reference that isn't important if you aren't/weren't a Christian) into the person reading the card because they had the audacity to put a prayer at the end. "Let us help you word a prayer (Realize it's not mere words that save, but your faith in Jesus Christ)". Here's my prayer "Dear Lord!" That sentence has so much arrogance and assumption piled in it, it's hard to pin down a single point to criticize effectively. I'll just say that the card is too poorly written to do what its writer thinks it is supposed to do. The prayer only compounds this, so I'm not going to bother quoting it.

This card is a classic example of what most Christians think. 1. Everyone wants what they want. 2. Their path is the only way to get what they think everyone wants. 3. Other belief systems have so little merit, people caught up in those systems are looking for a way out of them. 4. Simply talking about their faith (no matter how poorly or incoherently) is enough to convince others that their particular version of Christianity is the right (and only) way to live. 5. The bible has all the answers to describe this life path even though they don't research (instead of just reading) it themselves.

So sad. The truth is that this card only remotely has a chance at catching a positive response from someone who already identifies themself as Christian. This is a sort of cannibalism among the Christian faiths. They don't know how to talk to non-Christians in order to attract them to join because they are so caught up in their image of this world and have so little understanding of others within it.

Yup.

Pray for our Schools

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I witnessed a lie just now. While channel flipping, I caught a preacher talking about the "Wall separating the Church and State" (in the context of a discussion about our schools and government buildings) and how the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not mention a "wall", a "separation", the "Church" or the "State". Those words themselves do not appear in the First Amendment. So, how is this a lie? Well, yes, there is no mention of a wall. That was a metaphor created to Thomas Jefferson regarding a specific proposed Bill in his day. However, there is a statement that prevents the Congress (the "State") from making laws establishing or prohibiting (a "separation") religion (which includes the "Church"). There's the lie. It means that the government has not right to force someone to worship; it does not endorse any form of worship; and it does not prevent anyone from worship.

Of course, there is some leeway inheritant to this separation. It is wrong for a public school to endorse prayer on its premises because prayer is a form of worship. However, where some have taken this to far is that they feel the school has to prevent worship in order not to endorse it. This idea is also a lie. It is a lie that fuels Churches in their lie. "See, they don't allow us to worship in schools!" Both positions are extreme. The interested parties on both extremes of this issue feed off of each other.

There is no wall. But there is designated limits on the authority of our government to impose its will upon the people. This is one of several cornerstones built into the Constitutional Amendments that prevents the majority of our population from oppressing any minority.

It also serves as a rule against the supporting of religion by public deeds or use of public funds. Again, some have taken this too far. Some have interpreted this prohibition of support to mean prohibition of religious activities on public school premises. They don't understand the difference between endorsement and equal access to public properties. As long as a Church pays the same as any other similar group renting a school auditorium, there is be no prohibition against that Church from renting it. If the school gave some sort of special "Church discount", then that would be an endorsement. The discount itself would be unconstitional, not the Church using the school facilities. This applied misunderstanding is more fuel for Churches to preach about how our system is being used to oppress religion. It gives them the opportunity to propagandize their lie about the First Amendment.

Hell is Home

As I've said before, Earth is Hell. Things are as bad as they can possibly be anywhere else. And if anyone can imagine things worse, they are free make things worse right here!

Ten Commandments are where?

The Ten Commandments of the Bible aren't where or what most Christians are taught. Normally, most Christians believe that the Ten Commandments is at Exodus 20: 1-17. However, these verses are neither identified as the Ten Commandments, nor are they just ten commandments. These verses are at the head of a whole series of commandments that go on and on about building an alter to God, how to treat slaves, family matters, national matters, etc.

So what? Well, there is only one set of ten commandments that are labelled as the Ten Commandments in the Bible. These are found at Exodus 34: 12-28. Here's the confusing part, Deuteronomy 4: 13 and 10: 3-4 mention the Ten Commandments by name, but do not identify their contents. However Deuteronomy 5: 7-21 does list a set of commandments that mirrors Exodus 20: 1-17, though with somewhat different words. Also, neither Exodus 20: 1-17 nor Deuteronomy 5: 7-21 has a list that adds up to ten. It is really eleven, or even just nine depending how one reads the texts, but definitely not ten.

So, there are three different lists which are purported to be the Ten Commandments. The ten commandments found at Exodus 34: 12-28 is official Ten Commandments in the Bible. However, one will never find this Ten Commandments on display in front a Church, Courthouse or anywhere else that claims to represent God. Why? The answer lies in comparing each (from New American Standard Bible):

Red: Deuteronomy 5: 7-21 (eleven commandments)

Blue: Exodus 20: 1-17 (also eleven commandments)

I.

You shall have no other gods before Me.

You shall have no other gods before Me.

IIa.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

IIb.

You shall not worship them or serve [idols]

You shall not worship them or serve [idols]

(This commandment is often not counted because it's essentially a repeat of the first two. However, it could also be argued that these first three commandments are really one commandment being explained three different ways. Of course that means there are only nine commandments here; not ten or eleven)

III.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain

IIII.

Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy [to remember you where slaves in Egypt]

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

(Notice the justification for this commandment is significantly different between the two versions.)

V.

Honor your father and your mother

Honor your father and your mother

VI.

You shall not murder.

You shall not murder.

VII.
You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not commit adultery.

VIII.
You shall not steal.

You shall not steal.

VIIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

X.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Those two versions are very similar to each other, but do have an interestingly different explanation for why the Sabbath should be kept. Now compare these to the commandments that are officially labelled as the Ten Commandments. This list can be tedious since it provides so much explanation for some of the commandments, so I've bolded each within its context.

Green: Exodus 34: 12-28

I.

Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods.

II.

You shall make for yourself no molten gods.

III.

You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.

IIII.

The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep. You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed.

V.

You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.

VI.

You shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks, that is, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

VII.

Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel. For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God.

VIII.

You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be left over until morning.

VIIII.

You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God.

X.

You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

Wow, the official Ten Commandments don't make much sence in modern context. In fact, the last five are kinda creepy. I can understand why the Churches ignore this official set of Ten Commandments in favor of the much easier to follow lists elsewhere in the Bible. However, this picking and choosing which verses to use and which to hide is yet another example of the hypocrisy that seethes from organized religion and a very good reason not to have their ten commandments plastered in front of our Courthouses and government buildings.

Source: 101 Myths of the Bible

God Protects Our Children?

Although the bible should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt, it is an excellent source for learning how to raise children. The advice it gives for dealing with a problem child is simple, straightforward, and 100% effective. Here's is an excerpt from Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 according to the New American Standard Bible:

18. If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19. then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. 20. They shall say to the elders of his city, `This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21. Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

So, according to wisdom the bible, God's way of dealing with a problem child is to have them lovingly stoned to death by the local community. God's loving nature comes through very clearly in this command to his people.

Now, someone may say that I'm taking this text out of context. To such a defensive comment, I gladly suggest such a person should read whole chapter of Duet. 21. It is a list of commandments on when to kill cattle for murder, how to properly rape a woman captured during military conquests, and when to stone people to death for various deeds; among other things. This commandment to stone a problem child to death is simply one commandment from among that list, similar to the famous Ten Commandments.

This brief expose on the Bible's consideration of children was triggered because I recently ran across a request by a person looking for a scripture in the bible that showed God protects children from harm. Being the good former pseudo-fundamentalist that I am, I immediately felt inclined to clear up the issue on just how God treats children in the bible. Deut. 21: 18-21 is just one of a hundred examples where children are treated with disdain, as afterthoughts, and as property. The bible isn't the best place to look when trying to learn how to raise children. It doesn't really give any practical advice at all. There's nothing on how to change a baby's diaper, how to burp a baby, how to deal with bully's in school, how to read and write, how to teach a child about sex, etc etc. It does have a commandment about how one's hair should be cut, but if we followed that, we'd all look like a bunch of nappy hippies. More to the point, the bible promotes physical abuse and murder of our children. This more than offsets any supposed scriptures in the Bible that do offer mildly useful advise if interpreted in a particular way.