Is this really what the real Ten Commandments looked like?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
This isn't blue because the person who made it on their computer made it blue, it's blue because the tradition says the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God into sapphire tablets that when placed side-by-side formed a perfect cube, and no matter which side you looked at, you always saw all ten of the Ten Commandments, from all six sides, when the tablets were put together (the larger print was so the five shorter Commandments always filled up one whole side----basically adjusting the font size to fit the space).
Had you heard about this tradition, @Derf ? You seem very knowledgeable about the Torah is why.
en.wikipedia.org
The ark of the covenant makes more sense if this tradition is true, it carried the tablets, and so it carried basically a cube. Of rock. Makes a whole lot more sense than having two beefy clinkin tiles in there, which are more like what I was picturing the tablets as, clinkin around inside basically a hope chest. If the Ten looked like this, then the ark was holding a cube. I'm sure it was snug. I wasn't so sure before.
Had you heard about this tradition, @Derf ? You seem very knowledgeable about the Torah is why.
Sapphire - Wikipedia
The ark of the covenant makes more sense if this tradition is true, it carried the tablets, and so it carried basically a cube. Of rock. Makes a whole lot more sense than having two beefy clinkin tiles in there, which are more like what I was picturing the tablets as, clinkin around inside basically a hope chest. If the Ten looked like this, then the ark was holding a cube. I'm sure it was snug. I wasn't so sure before.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
People might think I'm trying to make a point about oral tradition here, extra-Biblical sources of information. I'm not. This is just really, really interesting to me. It makes sense why it would have been such a big deal for Moses to smash the first set. It's a supernatural work of art, especially for like what, 3600 years ago?
It's like miraculous prima facie. Like some sort of magic trick that you can't figure out how the magician did it, can't be real.
I wonder what those Romans did with them . . . . AD 70, General Titus, carried them off, to Rome. Where they at?
It's like miraculous prima facie. Like some sort of magic trick that you can't figure out how the magician did it, can't be real.
I wonder what those Romans did with them . . . . AD 70, General Titus, carried them off, to Rome. Where they at?
Oh yeah. Tradition is always more reliable than the word of God.This isn't blue because the person who made it on their computer made it blue, it's blue because the tradition says the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God into sapphire tablets that when placed side-by-side formed a perfect cube, and no matter which side you looked at, you always saw all ten of the Ten Commandments, from all six sides, when the tablets were put together (the larger print was so the five shorter Commandments always filled up one whole side----basically adjusting the font size to fit the space).
Had you heard about this tradition, @Derf ? You seem very knowledgeable about the Torah is why.
Sapphire - Wikipedia
The ark of the covenant makes more sense if this tradition is true, it carried the tablets, and so it carried basically a cube. Of rock. Makes a whole lot more sense than having two beefy clinkin tiles in there, which are more like what I was picturing the tablets as, clinkin around inside basically a hope chest. If the Ten looked like this, then the ark was holding a cube. I'm sure it was snug. I wasn't so sure before.
This ought to be enough to show the falsity of the modern Jewish claim. There's probably another dozen verses if you'd need more evidence.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That doesn't conflict with anything I said. The Scripture says stone. The tradition says sapphire stone. There's no contradiction.
==
eta the Scripture says two, the tradition says two. No contradiction.
What the tradition provides and the Scripture doesn't, is what it means that it was written with the finger of God, and why it was such a big deal that Moses broke the first set, and why they needed an ark to carry them around in, and why the Jewish people revered the Law so much, even though they weren't necessarily the most scrupulous about obeying it all the time. The Scripture just doesn't go into any of those things, and this tradition does. It's consistent with all the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Never heard of this before. I'm not an expert on the Torah, by any account. But @ffreeloader's references seem to be good ones.
The ark wasn't cube-shaped, and there was enough room to also hold Aaron's rod that budded, along with a jar of manna.Sapphire - Wikipedia
The ark of the covenant makes more sense if this tradition is true, it carried the tablets, and so it carried basically a cube. Of rock. Makes a whole lot more sense than having two beefy clinkin tiles in there, which are more like what I was picturing the tablets as, clinkin around inside basically a hope chest. If the Ten looked like this, then the ark was holding a cube. I'm sure it was snug. I wasn't so sure before.
So scripture says nothing about the Jew's/Israelite's rebellion against God. Really?
I think you missed Hebrews 3. It was because of unbelief in God's word that they didn't keep God's law. The only way anyone can keep God's word is through faith in Him.
The Bible says the 10 commandments were written on "tablets of stone."
What that means as far as their shape goes is unknown, but it does say stone, like a mason would use.
It does not say sapphire, for which there IS a word in Hebrew.
Also, Corundum (which is what rubies and sapphires are made of) has a hardness of 9 on the Mohs scale, and does not break easily.
Moses was able to break the first set of stone tablets simply by throwing them on the ground.
Based on this, it's is not likely that the Tablets were anything other than plain old stone...
What that means as far as their shape goes is unknown, but it does say stone, like a mason would use.
It does not say sapphire, for which there IS a word in Hebrew.
Also, Corundum (which is what rubies and sapphires are made of) has a hardness of 9 on the Mohs scale, and does not break easily.
Moses was able to break the first set of stone tablets simply by throwing them on the ground.
Based on this, it's is not likely that the Tablets were anything other than plain old stone...
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Right, but in the context the last stone mentioned was sapphire.
Exodus 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. 12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
If the tablets were like the OP's image, it's easy to see how even a diamond would crack if tossed about even haphazardly let alone with intent to damage them. Those Hebrew letters are carved through the tablets. I don't know what happens when the letters facing one way meets the letters from the other wise, but the tradition is that they are not just etched into the surface, but go through the tablets.
Derf
Well-known member
And that's why we need to be careful about "traditions".
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That doesn't follow for me. You're welcome to elaborate; I'll read it.
Derf
Well-known member
Traditions can be good or bad. They might not convey truth. They might hide the truth.
Mark 7:7-8 (ESV) 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
They might be true too.
For sure any tradition that contradicts God is not of divine origin.
Derf
Well-known member
How can we tell if it contradicts God?
Now apply that here:
So what? The sapphire was what God was standing on.
And God said He would make it out of stone, likely from the mountain they were on, not what He was standing on.
Again: Sapphire has a hardness of 9 on the Mohs hardness scale, and has no cleavage (how easy it is to break). It's not going to break.
The Bible says God wrote on two stone tablets. Not sapphire.
That contradicts this supposed tradition, and as such, the Bible should be adhered to, and the tradition rejected.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
First question would be does it come from an Apostle. Like whatever Paul's talking about here:
2nd Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
It's really not the same thing as the tradition that the Ten Commandments looked like the image in the OP though, since later in the same epistle Paul says:
3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Whatever the Ten looked like, it's not something we "withdraw ourselves" from someone who doesn't agree with us about. To me this tradition about the physical form of the tablets is more like our Catholic Apostolic tradition that Mary was assumed into heaven upon her going softly into the night. Somewhat parallel to the tradition about the sapphire tablets, she is considered the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant in the New Covenant, which her son the Lord brought with Him and dedicated.
I think in Thessalonians Paul's talking about serious ethical traditions, not optional ones. When he in another place instructs his "son" the bishop Timothy concerning traditions he says:
2nd Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
So I guess I'd say, to finish my answer to your post, that if we could find out from Timothy what Paul said to him (among many witnesses, not privately), what Paul was referring to here in verse 2:2, then that too would tell us what tradition doesn't contradict God. That would be an Apostolic tradition.
So if a tradition comes from an Apostle, or it comes from "Timothy" (or "Titus"), then we can know that a tradition doesn't contradict God, basically no matter what.
Derf
Well-known member
Yet the church from early on had nothing written by Timothy or Titus telling us what Paul said that was considered worthy of including in the canon of scripture, probably because it was unnecessary or duplicative. Which tells us, I believe, that if we are going to get some doctrinal wisdom from something, it needs to come from the canon.
I don't see any doctrinal wisdom coming from the sapphire tablets that we don't already have available from elsewhere, so it's probably harmless.
I can't say the same for Mary's assumption and related traditions.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I'm curious. @JudgeRightly & @Derf (and anyone) do you all accept the traditional location of the Lord's tomb and "Calvary"? Both locations are now within the walls of one large church, the Church of the Sepulcher (meaning "tomb"). (The Gospel of John corroborates that the cross and empty tomb were nearby.)
I'm not sure if this will clarify anything as we hopefully continue the discussion, but I thought I'd ask; just to see where we're at.
I'm not sure if this will clarify anything as we hopefully continue the discussion, but I thought I'd ask; just to see where we're at.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
I don't have any opinion on those locations. They might be correct, or might not be. At this point in time, the use of the actual locations is mostly not helpful, just as the use of the actual body and blood of Christ in Mass is not helpful. The memory of each IS helpful. The memory of the cross--any cross, potentially--helps us remember the death he died in our place--substitutionary atonement. The empty tomb--or a facsimile--reminds of his resurrection, which we will follow in. The elements do both (with other things typified as well), giving us a well-established corporate memory that also ties him to us and us to him in faith.
And if these things aren't helpful (the same effect can be accomplished with substitute locations and regular bread and drink), the insistence on the actuals leads to superstition.
I think the same might be said of the sapphire construction for the Decalogue. That doesn't mean they weren't as you describe, but I see no reason to promote it, and possible harm in doing so.