Thanks for the article. It's certainly true that God spoke the ten commandments from Mount Sinai.
God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)
But those were the ONLY words he uttered to all of Israel. He did not speak directly to the people after this, but spoke through prophets.
Exd 20:18 KJV - And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off.
Exd 20:19 KJV - And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Please note that I'm not diminishing those instructions given through the prophets. I'm merely pointing out that the giving of Godly revelation through prophets was norm.
All of the law except the ten commandments were given through prophets such as Moses, Ezekiel, Jesus and Paul.
I will also be observing the Shavu'ot, or Pentecost, this weekend and hope that you have a blessed observance.
Unfortunately, you only believe this because it is written in the Protestant bible, to which you take an a priori position of belief. The article was aimed at people who do not have this assumption and shows from simple logic that G-d spoke at Sinai.
That chr*stianity is unprovided for by the Torah means nothing to you, because you inherited a bible with a "new testament" tacked on to the end, which automatically makes it "the word of G-d." If the Apocrypha (which were originally in the KJV) had never been removed you would believe them as well.
Your logic is identical to that of the mormons. And I know . . . you claim mine is identical to that of the Catholics because you assume to accept any Tradition is to accept all tradition.
I'm sorry for a hostile response to a basically friendly post, but your illogical assumptions are absolutely maddening.
You are aware, aren't you, that when J*sus was preaching the "new testament" was not in the Bible and that he couldn't quote Ephesians to prove what he was teaching?
http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/sh/dt.57.2.05.html
... the original plan was for the people to hear more than just these ‘Aseret haDibrot; whether they should have heard the entire Torah or just the rest of Sefer haB’rit (through 23:19) is unclear. What is implicit in these verses is that it was the people’s fear that interrupted the revelation and “changed the rules” such that Mosheh would receive the rest of the revelation alone and transmit it to the people.
This would also explain an interesting switch in terminology in the Torah relating to the Tablets. Whereas they are called Luchot haB’rit - “the Tablets of the Covenant” in one section of Sefer D’varim (9:9-15), they have a different name in reference to their placement in the Mishkan:
You shall put into the ark the Edut (testimony) that I shall give you. (25:16).
These tablets are called Edut because they testify to the Revelation. In other words, these ‘Aseret haDibrot were not committed to graphic representation on the tablets because of their inherent importance, but rather as a testimony to the Revelation which every member of the B’nei Yisra’el had experienced...