What? We removed nothing. No commandments, and no books of The Bible ;-)
There are 13 or so imperative (command) statements in exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The Catholics (and some mainline prots from my understanding) draw more from Deuteronomy. The numbering of the verses of The Bible is new remember, the verses weren't distinct the way they are now, so with 13 apparent command statements, you'll need to find some way decide which belong together to make 10. If you want to rely on sola scriptura instead of the church fathers and tradition for this, then go ahead (because it's not a matter of dogma I don't think), go decide for yourself how those should be organised, without reference to any other list or tradition, which should be grouped together. Particularly without the verse numbering. Read it and see for yourself.
They even removed one of the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt not bow before any graven image" or however it goes.
No, in the catholic understanding it is all a part of the first commandment, from Deuteronomy5:6-10. It's not removed, it's merged in and counted as a part of that. Same as how you 'removed' lusting and coveting someone's wife. You merged it into your 10th, under all covetousness, for property too.
Then they split the tenth into two--"thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's possessions"--to bring the total back to ten.
No, it's wife and possessions. If we're numbering and ordering these to create a list of 10, wife and possessions seem a bit different to me, different sins, and following from the 6th and 7th commandments to not steal and not commit adultery, the 9th and 10th are to not even be envious or have lust for those things. They're seperate in the 6th and 7th, makes sense to be seperate in the 9th and 10th too to me. If it were house vs possessions, you might have a point and it would look like two very closely related things had been separated into two commandments. But no, the wife and possessions are quite distinct in my view. I think the Lutherans do it that way, with them separating out house and possessions. Seems weird, I agree. But if you take issue with them doing that, that's not us, go take it up with Luthor (who at least also put the idolatry in as part of the first commandment btw)
But also, it's not dogma, nothing is 'set in stone' on this as it were (heh). The other methods of listing them can be valid. It's more just the shorthand way we teach and memorise it.
Oh and it's 'murder', not 'kill'. Why did you change that?
Well, now we know you of all people really shouldn't rely on just your own reading, because you've taken a completely inverted meaning from this simple thing I wrote.
My point is that a sola scriptura reading of it doesn't tell you how to organise this list of 10 commandments, there are more than 10 imperatives. I was open to it here though, I said go ahead and try. On this matter, it's all a load of tradition that isn't held as dogma. My point is that to insist on your list, you're not relying on a plain reading, you're relying on a different American(?) tradition that you can't even fully remember.
They even removed one of the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt not bow before any graven image" or however it goes.
And accusing Catholics of holding a tradition that they do not hold, and one we aren't dogmatic about.
Then they split the tenth into two--"thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possessions"--to bring the total back to ten.
I don't know where you think you read any of this, but being so wrong about scripture and faith traditions like that doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in a sola scriptura approach.
The Bible is a fair bit longer than even 2,612 characters. You're really not helping your case for you being capable of a sola scriptura approach if you can't manage so much as 410 or so words in a refutation.
Did you want a 280 character limit here, like twitter or something?
And yes, simple. I ran it through a Flesch-Kincaid tool for you:
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 7.1
Flesch Reading Ease Score: 72.4
Reading Level: 7th grade ( Fairly easy to read )
If you need simpler, please tell me what grade level you need and I'll try to accommodate word it all simple like.
What? We removed nothing. No commandments, and no books of The Bible ;-)
There are 13 or so imperative (command) statements in exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The Catholics (and some mainline prots from my understanding) draw more from Deuteronomy. The numbering of the verses of The Bible is new remember, the verses weren't distinct the way they are now, so with 13 apparent command statements, you'll need to find some way decide which belong together to make 10. If you want to rely on sola scriptura instead of the church fathers and tradition for this, then go ahead (because it's not a matter of dogma I don't think), go decide for yourself how those should be organised, without reference to any other list or tradition, which should be grouped together. Particularly without the verse numbering. Read it and see for yourself.
No, in the catholic understanding it is all a part of the first commandment, from Deuteronomy5:6-10. It's not removed, it's merged in and counted as a part of that. Same as how you 'removed' lusting and coveting someone's wife. You merged it into your 10th, under all covetousness, for property too.
No, it's wife and possessions. If we're numbering and ordering these to create a list of 10, wife and possessions seem a bit different to me, different sins, and following from the 6th and 7th commandments to not steal and not commit adultery, the 9th and 10th are to not even be envious or have lust for those things. They're seperate in the 6th and 7th, makes sense to be seperate in the 9th and 10th too to me. If it were house vs possessions, you might have a point and it would look like two very closely related things had been separated into two commandments. But no, the wife and possessions are quite distinct in my view. I think the Lutherans do it that way, with them separating out house and possessions. Seems weird, I agree. But if you take issue with them doing that, that's not us, go take it up with Luthor (who at least also put the idolatry in as part of the first commandment btw)
But also, it's not dogma, nothing is 'set in stone' on this as it were (heh). The other methods of listing them can be valid. It's more just the shorthand way we teach and memorise it.
Oh and it's 'murder', not 'kill'. Why did you change that?
Also Christ is the new covenant, so the OT is almost all prologue/commentary.
There it is
Well, now we know you of all people really shouldn't rely on just your own reading, because you've taken a completely inverted meaning from this simple thing I wrote.
My point is that a sola scriptura reading of it doesn't tell you how to organise this list of 10 commandments, there are more than 10 imperatives. I was open to it here though, I said go ahead and try. On this matter, it's all a load of tradition that isn't held as dogma. My point is that to insist on your list, you're not relying on a plain reading, you're relying on a different American(?) tradition that you can't even fully remember.
And accusing Catholics of holding a tradition that they do not hold, and one we aren't dogmatic about.
I don't know where you think you read any of this, but being so wrong about scripture and faith traditions like that doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in a sola scriptura approach.
The Bible is a fair bit longer than even 2,612 characters. You're really not helping your case for you being capable of a sola scriptura approach if you can't manage so much as 410 or so words in a refutation.
Did you want a 280 character limit here, like twitter or something?
And yes, simple. I ran it through a Flesch-Kincaid tool for you:
If you need simpler, please tell me what grade level you need and I'll try to
accommodateword it all simple like.Sola Scriptura is cringe