Mike Johnson urged a religious test for politicians - eviltoast
        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most “Christians” are also unaware of the extra ones, despite them being listed in black and white in the bible.

          In Exodus 20, Moses is given the tablets containing the ten commandments, which are listed off in the text of the bible in that chapter and are the ten that “everyone knows.”

          Then, in Exodus 32:19, Moses gets so pissed off at witnessing his people worshiping the golden calf that he breaks the tablets that have the commandments carved on them. In Exodus 33 he goes back up the mountain to ask god what to do about it. In Exodus 34, god goes as far as to say unto Moses, “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Throughout the chapter he does so, listing off a screed that contains a couple of the original commandments (no other gods before me, and remember the sabbath) but the rest of his directions are quite different from the first list.

          Further, there is a recitation of the first ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5, where a different explanation for the sabbath day is given. In Exodus god claims the sabbath is holy because he created the world in six days and the seventh day is a day of rest, but in Deuteronomy he says the sabbath actually holy because the people of Israel were slaves in Egypt and god gave them rest in the form of their freedom. Moses further goes on to say after this recitation that these were the words god spoke and he “added no more,” which as we saw in Exodus 34 is bogus.

          I guess actually it’s 18 in total, then. We can treat it as a trick question for Mike Johnson.

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There’s an interesting detail to the whole “Moses breaking the original tablets in response to the golden calf worship.”

            This parallels the alleged reforms of Josiah.

            Josiah “finds a new book of laws” and then suddenly carries out major religious reforms. He performed human sacrifice slaughtering the priests of the high places on their altars to defile them. He hides away the Ark, the anointing oil, the manna jar. He gets rid of the Asherah worship.

            And he gets rid of the golden calves in Bethel and Dan while getting rid of the old laws and bringing new ones.

            Oh, and he institutes the Passover narrative.

            So suddenly in the events around Moses, the central part of that Passover narrative, is a scene that has old laws being destroyed in response to golden calf worship and new laws taking their place.

            Very sus.

            Even more sus is that Josiah’s reforms appear to be anachronistic given the correspondence over a century later between Elephantine and Jerusalem.

            We should really be taking Hecataeus of Adbera’s claim that the scriptures of the Jews had recently been significantly altered around the Exodus narrative under the Persian and Macedonian conquests more seriously.

            Edit: Also if the Shapira scroll is legit, there was originally an 11th commandment.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            SMH. I can’t stand when fantasy authors have such shoddy and inconsistent worldbuilding. Doesn’t anyone proofread and run the manuscript by beta readers anymore?

            • Fun fact, the King James version (which wingnuts love to swear adherence to, maybe because of all the flowery language) was supposed to be the edit that fixed many of these worldbuilding gaffes. Obviously, it categorically failed to do so – it even still includes both mildly contradictory accounts of the creation of the world in Genesis, which another poster here already mentioned.

              • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It also includes contradictions on pretty much every part of the gospels in relation to each other but, to be fair, that’s the case in all of them.

                Does beg the question of why they didn’t align them when they had the chance. Some times the word of God is more malleable than others I guess.

                • 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The original King James version included the apocrypha, which are found in the Catholic versions, but booksellers realized they could sell more copies if they left out the apocrypha. That’s why most copies today don’t have the apocrypha.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They did try to align them. Mark original ends at the Tomb, eventually scribes started adding details post-tomb to Mark. Which is why the Mark Gospel we have now reads like it has three separate endings.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one reads the KJV except people seeking a doctrine in biblical studies. Everyone reads the revised KJV. The original version was plagiarized off an earlier English Bible instead of going directly to the source material. So even when it was first published it sounded like an old time way of speaking. Also it contained non-canon books that publishers would later take out to save on costs.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well to be fair none of these people knew they were writing the Bible. You are some ancient scribe. The local king/warlord wants you to take some old story or scroll and revamp it to argue how great he is. Can’t really refuse a guy with a throne of human bones especially since a. He is paying you b. This is your chance to write a fanfic, maybe it won’t suck this time.

              Over and over the translations and copies were altered. As each group tried to prove that they had it right and everyone before them had it wrong.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which is part of the reason why it is thought that the final editors, prior to the 3rd century, were fusing two different narratives together. Same thing happens in Genesis and to a lesser extent in Mark.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Start with “Which came first, people or animals?”

      Genesis 1:

      20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

      24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      Genesis 2:

      7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

      21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

      22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed. Two stories from two regions mashed up into the Septuagint along with a number of other writings, much of it proven to be anachronistic, meant to unify a kingdom politically against its rivals under one religion and one god where before there were many of each. It’s also why you see god being named in different ways in different books.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yup. Genesis 1 is the Elohist creation myth, Genesis 2 is the Jawhist creation myth. But try telling that to biblical literalists.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks; I couldn’t recall the details of which was which.

            Biblical literalists are in for some disappointment or further self delusion if told this, I am guessing.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          meant to unify a kingdom politically against its rivals

          Someone has been reading their Finkelstein, haha. I am not saying he isn’t right I remain on the fence about it as of this time.