Is this really what the real Ten Commandments looked like?

[JudgeRightly]

. . . do you all accept the traditional location of the Lord's tomb and "Cavalry"?

It's Calvary.

Cavalry means a mounted soldier, typically on a horse or vehicle.

As for the location of Christ's tomb and Golgotha, we KNOW where it is, no need to rely on a tradition.

The Garden Tomb Jerusalem

The Garden Tomb Jerusalem · Conrad Schick St, Jerusalem

★★★★★ · Garden

maps.app.goo.gl

The only tomb nearby the place of the skull (Golgotha), named so because the hill used to look like a skull (it has recently collapsed so that it isn't as obvious) that matches the description of the tomb's layout and the need for it being close to where Jesus was crucified (due to the approaching Sabbath) in Scripture is the Garden Tomb in Israel.

All the other tombs in the area turn left, the one in the Garden Tomb turns right, which is as the Bible describes.

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 have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[Derf]

I wonder what those Romans did with them . . . . AD 70, General Titus, carried them off, to Rome. Where they at?

If I remember correctly, the artwork depicting the spoils Titus brought from Jerusalem did not include images of the ark of the covenant.

Right, but in the context the last stone mentioned was sapphire

Your cited verse doesn't support the more imaginative stones.
Exodus 24:10 (ESV)
and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.

I think this means it looked like sapphire, but "as it were" denotes a similarity (in appearance here), not a sameness in all characteristics.

 

[Idolater]

Now apply that here:



So what? The sapphire was what God was standing on.

I said the 'so what' part already. The tablets were made of "stone". The last time the Scripture mentioned "stone" leading up to that verse, wasn't like two books prior, it was two sentences prior, and the "stone" at that point was "sapphire". That's all.

And God said He would make it out of stone, likely from the mountain they were on, not what He was standing on.

You're just saying that. It could very well be in spite of your view, that the text was meant to suggest the stone mentioned in one verse is the same type of stone mentioned two verses subsequent. The same phenomenon is how we know that the Apostle Paul's last name was Paul, like Mr. Ron Paul, or his son Senator Rand Paul. We know that when that Scripture in Acts says that Saul was also know as Paul, it was because Saul's last name was Paul, like Sergio Paul, the fellow Luke mentioned leading up to Paul's name change in Scripture.

My guess: probably so that Gentiles wouldn't necessarily right away know Paul was a Jew, like how they would definitely know it if he was introduced as Saul.

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.

Why are you so incredulous that even a diamond version of the OP's rendition of the tablets would be delicate?

The only real thing that's actually as hard is what you think of as diamond or sapphire hardness, is logic itself. Diamonds and sapphires are made into gems, because they're not as hard as you think they are. Gemcutting is a thing. That means you're wrong, by that very fact. It's certainly not impossible that if you took even a diamond version of the OP's rendition, and threw it against a boulder, that it would break somewhere, and it didn't have to break up into powder, JR, for Moses to have ruined them. All he'd have to do is smash a corner on each one, for the tablets to have become obviously wrecked. If there were collectors, and there were more than one pair of these tablets, Moses's pair just dropped to something less than "mint condition". Those thing don't have to be crumbled to be wrecked.

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.

You know that's an argument from silence.

 

[Right Divider]

You know that's an argument from silence.

You are wrong. As JR said, the Bible says God wrote on tables of STONE.

Deut 4:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

 

[Idolater]

You are wrong. As JR said, the Bible says God wrote on tables of STONE.

Deut 4:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

... 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.
...

 

[Right Divider]

@Idolater
Deut 4:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The Bible says two tables of stone and NOT two tables of SAPPHIRE stone. You are trying to CHANGE what the scripture clearly says to something that it does NOT say.

 

[Idolater]

@Idolater
Deut 4:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The Bible says two tables of stone and NOT two tables of SAPPHIRE stone. You are trying to CHANGE what the scripture clearly says to something that it does NOT say.

And it falls on deaf ears for some reason, but you are trying to argue from silence. Silence doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong either, or that this particular tradition is wrong or right. Silence doesn't conflict with anything. It logically can't be used to substantiate any claim. Surely, the truth is not contradicted by any Scripture, but the truth is not substantiated by silence either.

 

[Right Divider]

And it falls on deaf ears for some reason, but you are trying to argue from silence.

No, I'm not. I'm reading what the Bible says and taking it for what it actually says.

Silence doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong either, or that this particular tradition is wrong or right. Silence doesn't conflict with anything. It logically can't be used to substantiate any claim. Surely, the truth is not contradicted by any Scripture, but the truth is not substantiated by silence either.

You are seeing what you want to see, even though it's not there.

 

[Idolater]

No, I'm not. I'm reading what the Bible says and taking it for what it actually says.

You are seeing what you want to see, even though it's not there.

It had to be some kind of stone. Scripture doesn't say which, but that doesn't mean that it was like eternally a question mark as to what type of stone. And it definitely doesn't mean that literally nobody knew what kind of stone it was.

 

[Right Divider]

It had to be some kind of stone.

Brilliant!! It says stone... so it's stone! Genius!

Scripture doesn't say which, but that doesn't mean that it was like eternally a question mark as to what type of stone.

What in the world does that mean?

And it definitely doesn't mean that literally nobody knew what kind of stone it was.

Since the Bible uses "sapphire stone" in other places, we should assume that it would specify "sapphire stone" if the tables were sapphire stone. Since it does not specify, it is probably not "sapphire stone".

 

[Idolater]

Brilliant!! It says stone... so it's stone! Genius!

Why you're playing dumb here I can only guess. You know there are tons of varieties of stone. Granitic and basaltic for instance. Plus of course the Scripture names all sorts of stone so the Holy Spirit was aware that man had already named them according to type. It was some type of stone, not just a generic stone, the particular tablets were of a particular type of stone.

What in the world does that mean?

Supra.

Since the Bible uses "sapphire stone" in other places, we should assume that it would specify "sapphire stone" if the tables were sapphire stone. Since it does not specify, it is probably not "sapphire stone".

Argument from silence again. Do you not know you're doing it? Do you admit it but excuse yourself for doing it?

 

[Right Divider]

Why you're playing dumb here I can only guess.

Don't stoop to lying.

You know there are tons of varieties of stone.

Duh.

Granitic and basaltic for instance.

Gee thanks for the news.

Plus of course the Scripture names all sorts of stone so the Holy Spirit was aware that man had already named them according to type. It was some type of stone, not just a generic stone, the particular tablets were of a particular type of stone.

Duh again.

Argument from silence again. Do you not know you're doing it? Do you admit it but excuse yourself for doing it?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that you have no warrant for claiming that the stone was sapphire. You are claiming this without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Idolater]

Don't stoop to lying.

Duh.

Well if it's "Duh" then why are you accusing me of lying? Make up your mind.

Gee thanks for the news.

Duh again.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that you have no warrant for claiming that the stone was sapphire. You are claiming this without any evidence whatsoever.

The tradition is the evidence!

 

[Right Divider]

Well if it's "Duh" then why are you accusing me of lying? Make up your mind.

You accused me of "playing dumb".

The tradition is the evidence!

Catholics love unproven and unprovable "tradition".

 

[JudgeRightly]

It had to be some kind of stone. Scripture doesn't say which, but that doesn't mean that it was like eternally a question mark as to what type of stone. And it definitely doesn't mean that literally nobody knew what kind of stone it was.

It does say. And I told you this already. Maybe you didn't catch it. Here it is again:

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.

. . .

"It does say stone, like a mason would use."

That's referring to the hebrew word used, and the Strong's concordance entry for that word, which is this:

Strong's h68 - Lexical: אֶבֶן - Transliteration: eben - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: eh'-ben - Definition: a stone. - Origin: From the root of banah through the meaning to build; a stone. - Usage: + carbuncle, + mason, + plummet, (chalk-, hail-, head-, sling-)stone(-ny), (divers) weight(-s). - Translated as (count): stones (49), with stones (22), a stone (21), the stones (18), stone (17), of stone (16), and stones (15), of stones (15), the stone (15), and stone (13), differing (3), And a stone (2), And the stones (2), and weights (2), and with stones (2), as stones (2), her stones (2), its stones (2), jewels (2), stonecutters (2), to the stone (2), with a stone (2), A stone weight (1), according to standard (1), against a stone (1), and (1), and an stone (1), and differing weights (1), and ore (1), and slabs (1), and some (1), and to a stone (1), and your stones (1), as a stone (1), as common as stones (1), but a stone (1), but a weight (1), cover (1), for ore (1), for stone (1), for stones (1), from (1), hailstones (1), in stone (1), in stones (1), Like (1), like a stone (1), Like stone (1), nor a stone (1), of (1), of a stone (1), of the stone (1), of the stones (1), of weights (1), one of the stones (1), out the stones (1), slingstones (1), some (1), the plummet (1), the stony (1), the weights in (1), their stone (1), they the jewels (1), threw stones (1), to stone (1), uses a stone (1), weights (1), with stone (1), your stones (1).

 

[Idolater]

It does say. And I told you this already. Maybe you didn't catch it. Here it is again:



"It does say stone, like a mason would use."

That's referring to the hebrew word used, and the Strong's concordance entry for that word, which is this:

Strong's h68 - Lexical: אֶבֶן - Transliteration: eben - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: eh'-ben - Definition: a stone. - Origin: From the root of banah through the meaning to build; a stone. - Usage: + carbuncle, + mason, + plummet, (chalk-, hail-, head-, sling-)stone(-ny), (divers) weight(-s). - Translated as (count): stones (49), with stones (22), a stone (21), the stones (18), stone (17), of stone (16), and stones (15), of stones (15), the stone (15), and stone (13), differing (3), And a stone (2), And the stones (2), and weights (2), and with stones (2), as stones (2), her stones (2), its stones (2), jewels (2), stonecutters (2), to the stone (2), with a stone (2), A stone weight (1), according to standard (1), against a stone (1), and (1), and an stone (1), and differing weights (1), and ore (1), and slabs (1), and some (1), and to a stone (1), and your stones (1), as a stone (1), as common as stones (1), but a stone (1), but a weight (1), cover (1), for ore (1), for stone (1), for stones (1), from (1), hailstones (1), in stone (1), in stones (1), Like (1), like a stone (1), Like stone (1), nor a stone (1), of (1), of a stone (1), of the stone (1), of the stones (1), of weights (1), one of the stones (1), out the stones (1), slingstones (1), some (1), the plummet (1), the stony (1), the weights in (1), their stone (1), they the jewels (1), threw stones (1), to stone (1), uses a stone (1), weights (1), with stone (1), your stones (1).

You're right. Foiled again by the supposedly literal KJV lol. Where the KJV says "sapphire stone" (Ex24:10) the Strongs definition for the Hebrew is just "sapphire", not 'sapphire stone' lol. Curses! lol

Nonetheless though JR, while "like a mason would use" supports that it wasn't sapphire, in your own lexical data it shows the word is translated "jewel" three times.

So, this doesn't rule out the sapphire tablet tradition either.

 

[Idolater]

You accused me of "playing dumb".

Yes. Because there are different kinds of stone. A stone can be any kind of stone. There's no one kind of stone, there are tons of different kinds of stone. And I elaborated, so that you knew what I meant. And you played dumb anyway, just so that you could throw in a passive aggressive shot at me, instead of just be a human being and talk to me.

Catholics love unproven and unprovable "tradition".

Bald assertion, begging the question. And completely not constructive. Which you also know.

And then you whirl around and say I'm accusing you of something. Yeah! I'm accusing you of doing what you're doing.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes. Because there are different kinds of stone. A stone can be any kind of stone. There's no one kind of stone, there are tons of different kinds of stone. And I elaborated, so that you knew what I meant. And you played dumb anyway, just so that you could throw in a passive aggressive shot at me, instead of just be a human being and talk to me.

So when the Bible just says "stone", why do you ASSUME a SPECIFIC type of stone?

 

[Idolater]

So when the Bible just says "stone", why do you ASSUME a SPECIFIC type of stone?

There's a tradition which is a custom that is inherited, that claims it was a specific type of stone.

Fact is it was a specific type of stone.

The Bible doesn't specifically say which type of stone that it was.

That's all the facts.

 

[Right Divider]

There's a tradition which is a custom that is inherited, that claims it was a specific type of stone.

Traditions can be wrong. God's Word is our standard.

Fact is it was a specific type of stone.

Duh.

The Bible doesn't specifically say which type of stone that it was.

Fact.

That's all the facts.

Traditions can be wrong. This one is wrong.