The bible states that a second set of commandments will be given to Moses.  God tells Moses to chisel out a second set and have them prepared for Him the following morning.  Moses did what God required, and that following morning, the prologue is given, but the second set of commandments weren't recorded in chapter 34.

We know this because Deuteronomy 5 chronicles a set of commandments that were given to a later generation, and it does not match anything that was given in chapter 34.  THIS should be a red flag.  If the second set is detailed in chapter 34, then why does the ten commandments given to a later generation not mirror it in every way?  What's the point of a second set if it's entirely ignored for the first set?

So we are left with one of two conclusions.  The first conclusion is that there is a really obvious contradiction that the author missed, that most thoughtful authors wouldn't miss, which leads to there being three sets of commandments given (Ex 20, 34 and Deut. 5).  This conclusion gives the first set commandments, which Moses broke, then returns to the mountain and is given a second set that doesn't come close to resembling the first, only to have Moses give a later generation a third set that almost mirrors the first set, but entirely neglects the second set.  As one can see, this makes a big mess out of the event, but is something that you and Gluadys are content with because "it is what it is."  Incidentally, this conclusion is not black and white, nor does chapter 34 verify that the prologue is indeed the second set of commandments.

The second conclusion is that is that Moses broke the first set of commandments recorded in Ex 20, goes back to the mountain top to receive a second set, which is an event that's recorded, but the actual second set isn't numerated in any detail, but is later confirmed in Deut 5 when given to a later generation because it differs slightly than the original set, but the differences are only subtle.  This conclusion agrees the the author that the second set is "just like the first" using the "same words", and eliminates the mess caused by the first conclusion that there were actually three sets of commandments given, not two. 

The event taking place in Exodus 20 begins in Exodus 19 with the gathering of all Israel so that God, speaking through Moses, could make a covenant with the people of Israel, "And the LORD said to Moses, 'God to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow.  Have them wash their clothes and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people....  On the mourning of the third day there was thunder and lightening, with a thick cloud over the mountain...  Everyone trembled.  Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.'" Exodus 19

Moses went up the mountain to meet with the LORD.  He then came down and gave them the commandments God had given him.  He took back up with him Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel who were to worship at a distance.  Then Moses went and told the people of Israel the LORD's words to which they replied, "Everything the LORD has said we will do."  The next morning Moses built an altar, the young Israelite men offered a burnt offering.  Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the altar.  Then he read the Book of the Covenant to the people and they responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."  Then Moses went back up the mountain for forty days and nights.  The covenant has been made. 

This is God making a covenant with the people of Israel and the people of Israel agreeing to the terms of the covenant, promising to obey.  Exodus 34 is a different event.

True, but the covenant has already been made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai the first time.  The new tablets were needed, but the covenant has already been established.

No, they are instructions to Moses as the leader of Israel.  The people were not assembled.  The covenant with the people has already been established.  The instructions to Moses here are described as "in accordance (agreement, conformity) with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."  The instructions given to Moses are in agreement with the covenant God has already made with Israel.  The covenant includes all the 600+ laws given to Israel in the Book of the Covenant which Israel agreed to.

While Moses was meeting with the LORD the second time, God wrote on the tablets the Ten Commandments as he did the first time.  But the instructions to Moses in this meeting were not a different set of Ten Commandments.

Gluadys,



That's not what I'm saying.  The goal of exegesis isn't to transform a messy text into something understandable by changing the content.  Rather, to understand the text the way it was meant to be understood.  Authors don't mean for texts to be contradictory, so readers should be inclined to view quasi-contradictions with some latitude, which you are not willing to give.

If I write you a message, and it appears to contradict itself in a clear and significant way, would you call me out on it, or would you re-read the text assuming that something was missed?  It appears that you are inclined to do the former, not the latter. 




Why is that the simplest explanation?  It could be just a matter of style.




Even if the set in Deut. 5 were the first set, you would still have to establish that Ex 34 is indeed the second set and explain why Moses decided to quote from the first set to a latter generation while the second set was in existence.  The best explanation of this, is that the second set barely differed from the first, and therefore Moses quoted from the first with subtle changes in the 4th commandment.

Let's look at the text again:

Exodus 34:10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.

God declares he's making a covenant with Israel.

11 Obey what I command you today.

God is about to issue the commandments.

I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

 15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

 17 "Do not make cast idols.

 18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

 19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
      "No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

 21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

 22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.  23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

 25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

 26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
      "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

These were the commandments.

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

God tells Moses to write them down.

How can you dispute this?

It is if that is the way it was written---as it probably was.  It is likely that none of the writers who gave us a set of ten commandments had a written text in front of them.  The first set of tablets was broken and the second kept in the Ark of the Covenant which was inaccessible to them.  So each is writing on the basis of the oral tradition as it was known to them. 

So the Ten Commandments from Exodus 34 are Moses' personal Ten Commandments or The Ten Temporary Commandments and not Israel's Ten Commandments?

That's incorrect if you give any credibility at all to what's actually written.  Moses wrote down all that the LORD commanded Israel.  It was written in the Book of the Covenant.  "Then he (Moses) took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people."  (Exodus 24:7)  This same Book of the Covenant was later used by King Josiah to renew the covenant of the LORD with the people of Israel in his day.  "He (King Josiah) went up to the temple of the LORD with the men of Judah, the people of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets - all the people from the least to the greatest.  He read in their hearing all the word of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the LORD.  The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD - to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in the book."  (2 Kings 23:1-3)

It was all written in a book that the people of Israel possessed.  There's no "probably" or "likely" to it.  The fact is they knew every command the LORD had given them through Moses at Mount Sinai. 

The writer of Genesis and Exodus tells us a story about the beginnings of the nation Israel, how God led them out of captivity in Egypt (the Exodus) to take possession of the land He promised their forefathers, and the commands, regulations and decrees he gave them that they were to obey in order to live peacefully in that land. 

You can reject the truth of the Pentateuch and divide it all up, making it nonsensical, and you can call its authorship unreliable following the tradition that began in 18th century Germany with higher criticism.  You can use the terms "probably" and "likely" and claim your view to be scholarly.  But the fact is the Bible presents a complete picture when read as it is written, and proclaims the works of Almighty God among mankind.   When you begin to pick that apart you've lost the picture God has provided of his workings among men.

Well said, Lilly.

However, you implied the text which tells us what those ten commandments are can't be relied on since they weren't written down and the authors wouldn't have known what the commandments were since the tablets were in the ark.  That's incorrect, because the Book of the Covenant was available to the people.

Yes, the Book of the Covenant was not placed in the ark, but was placed next to it.  "After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD.  Take this Book of the Law and place it BESIDE the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God."  And you're right, it was to be read to the people every seven years.  The knowledge of the Law is not based in oral tradition, but is firmly rooted in what's written in the Book.

    No, the Law is written in a book.

 They didn't need to read it for themselves, they needed it so that the covenant God made with them could be known and was not lost in oral tradition.  It was written so that it would not be changed.  Knowing the Law had nothing to do with Israel's failure to keep it. Moses said, "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God.  There it will remain as a witness against you.  For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are.  If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!" (Deuteronomy 31:26-27)

No, the fact is the law was written in a book called the Book of the Law and was kept next to the ark. This is not about story telling to preserve a people's culture and history.  This is about the Law that God gave the people of Israel at Sinai and it was written down.  The author of Exodus didn't have to guess what the ten commandments were and subsequently got them wrong because they weren't written down anywhere.  That's the basis of your understanding of Exodus 34 and that basis is incorrect since the Law was in fact known and written down from the time God gave it to Israel at Mount Sinai as recorded in Exodus 20.

If the Pentateuch is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then how can you question the accuracy of the author?

And just because a man or woman calls himself a scholar doesn't mean he's working on these things from an unbiased position.  Many scholars reject the truth of the Scriptures and frame their understanding on their own biases. 

Such as?

No, I  didn't say they weren't written.  I said the writing was not accessible since the tablets they were written on were kept in the Ark of the Covenant, which in turn was kept  in the Holy of Holies.  No one but the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies.



 
No it wasn't.  It was kept beside the Ark in the Holy of Holiies---until even the priests and Levites became uncaring of the covenant and allowed it to be lost until the time of Josiah.  In either case it was not available to the people.  They only heard it on the once-in-seven years ritual reading of the law--until that was neglected, so then they didn't hear it at all except as it was kept alive through oral tradition. 


People who cannot read (which would be about 99% of the population, including many of the royal house and the elders) can only learn orally even when a written text is the basis of what they are learning.  So, yes, in an oral culture, knowledge of the Law is based on oral tradition, even when the oral tradition has been committed to writing.  It is not as if every home had their own private copy.  Nor was there a reading room in the temple.  Oral cultures transmit knowledge orally. 


Yes, a book kept in the inaccessible Holy of Holies and brought out to be read only once in seven years.  Furthermore, even that practice had clearly fallen by the wayside sometime between Solomon and Josiah.  During the time the Book of the Covenant was missing, the Law could only be kept alive via oral tradition, and even when it was kept in the temple, the primary method of teaching it was oral.

 

It was written, but nowhere that he could look at it and copy from it.  So, yes it is about story-telling to preserve a people's culture and history.  That is the way all ancient peoples, including the Hebrews educated the next generation.  Story-telling was their educational system.


Where have I questioned the accuracy of the authors?  I have been defending the integrity of the text from well-meaing "revisions" to make it conform to somebody's script. 


And anyone who creates a biased interpretation will have their errors pointed out by more conscientious scholars.  I suggest as well that