# Colibri, got a minute please... **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 3, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865 "2015-09-03T23:35:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/1 "2015-09-03T23:35:39Z")
I’m just curious as to why you didn’t move this thread, [Need help from the bible scholars](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=767016) to GD. I don’t want to count the amount of mod notes you placed in the tread, but there’s more than one, and most seem to be for something that would fit rather well in GD. It’s pretty hard to discuss a thread that asks a Biblical question without mentioning the obvious source. And when that source is mentioned, you called it witnessing? These threads seem a perfect fit for GD inasmuch as a factual answer will be questioned by much of the board. Why wasn’t the thread moved? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/2 "2015-09-04T00:54:09Z")
Whether or not to move a thread on religious issues to GD is a judgement call. In general, I prefer to try to keep threads in GQ if it seems reasonable to do so. In this case, a number of the earlier posts, including some of your own, cited specific Biblical verses relevant to the issue. This is perfectly in keeping with GQ. However, some posters, including yourself, posted things that were certainly not appropriate to GQ. Your later posts were closer to witnessing than to GQ answers, as the exchange below indicates. > [@Need help from the bible scholars](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-help-from-the-bible-scholars/729730/58): > > The simple answer is found in Commandment 6, 7 and 10. > > Thou shalt not kill > Thou shalt not commit adultery > Thou shalt not covet (- thy neighbor’s wife’s ass -) > [@Need help from the bible scholars](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-help-from-the-bible-scholars/729730/64): > > As we have seen, those don’t actually answer the question at all, since they don’t preclude the exceptions that have been cited. > [@Need help from the bible scholars](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-help-from-the-bible-scholars/729730/65): > > Those rules were burned in stone by God. Perhaps there’s a reason they were burned in stone instead of God relying on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word. > [@Need help from the bible scholars](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-help-from-the-bible-scholars/729730/68): > > **Moderating** > > This being GQ, unless you can produce some archaeological evidence supporting this statement, it has no bearing on the discussion. If you want to witness about your religious beliefs, take it to Great Debates. > > Colibri > General Questions Moderator I would prefer not to be forced to move a thread just because posters show blatant disregard for GQ standards and try to force the issue. In any case, some of the notes were for snark directed at other posters rather than related to the suitability of the question for GQ. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/3 "2015-09-04T01:07:33Z")
Cool, you want archaeological evidence that God provided Moses with 2 stone tablets inscribed with the 10 Commandments? That’s going to be hard because, well, Moses broke them broken in a fit of anger. See, this is explaining the story, not trying to witness or convert someone. It’s pretty hard to answer Biblical questions in any other way. Thanks for responding though. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/4 "2015-09-04T02:08:00Z")
Shouldn’t the people who provided biblical verses have to cite archeological evidence that those verses are factual? Because after all the ten commandments are also biblical verses. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/5 "2015-09-04T02:12:36Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Shouldn’t the people who provided biblical verses have to cite archeological evidence that those verses are factual? No. The OP was looking for cites from the OT. Whether or not they are “factual” is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/6 "2015-09-04T02:23:29Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > No. The OP was looking for cites from the OT. Whether or not they are “factual” is irrelevant. Then the Ten Commandments should be just fine. They’re part of the story as well. It’s just silly to say “Ok, we can discuss the part of the story dealing with Lot’s Daughters, but not the part of the story about Moses and the Ten Commandments.”. There’s little-to-no archeological evidence for either. The ruling was vague, arbitrary and inconsistent with itself. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/7 "2015-09-04T02:28:04Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Then the Ten Commandments should be just fine. They’re part of the story as well. It’s just silly to say “Ok, we can discuss the part of the story dealing with Lot’s Daughters, but not the part of the story about Moses and the Ten Commandments.”. There’s little-to-no archeological evidence for either. > > The ruling was vague, arbitrary and inconsistent with itself. Discussing the 10 commandments seemed fine - declaring that they were written on stone tablets by God - not so much. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/8 "2015-09-04T02:32:51Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > It’s just silly to say “Ok, we can discuss the part of the story dealing with Lot’s Daughters, but not the part of the story about Moses and the Ten Commandments.”. There’s little-to-no archeological evidence for either. I don’t think that was what Colibri was saying. I interpreted what he said as claiming the 10 commandments carry more weight than other verses because they were “burned in stone by God” and the other verses not having as much weight because they rely “on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word” is not appropriate due to the nature of the general question regarding what the OT says. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/9 "2015-09-04T02:54:33Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Discussing the 10 commandments seemed fine - declaring that they were written on stone tablets by God - not so much. But that’s part of the story. It’s like arguing that young Arthur couldn’t have pulled the sword from the stone because of physics. The surgeon from the stone is as much a part of the Arthur story as the 10 Commandments were written by God is part of the Bible story ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/10 "2015-09-04T03:07:14Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I don’t think that was what Colibri was saying. I interpreted what he said as claiming the 10 commandments carry more weight than other verses because they were “burned in stone by God” and the other verses not having as much weight because they rely “on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word” is not appropriate due to the nature of the general question regarding what the OT says. Right. **Morgenstern’s** second post I quoted above indicated that those verses were not subject to human interpretation specifically because they were burned in stone by God. Since the last part cannot be factually established, the first part obviously fails as well. Of course, the claim that they aren’t subject to interpretation fails at any level, since as several of the responses indicate “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t even an accurate translation of the Hebrew, which is better translated as “Thou shalt not murder.” ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/11 "2015-09-04T03:36:14Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Right. **Morgenstern’s** second post I quoted above indicated that those verses were not subject to human interpretation specifically because they were burned in stone by God. Since the last part cannot be factually established, the first part obviously fails as well. > > Of course, the claim that they aren’t subject to interpretation fails at any level, since as several of the responses indicate “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t even an accurate translation of the Hebrew, which is better translated as “Thou shalt not murder.” (emph mine) If accuracy of translation is now a standard for Biblical quotes in GQ, then we’re all screwed. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that there are ubiquitous errors in the early translation of the bible. But, with respect to the first issue. Your claim that that verse was not subject to human interpretation because of whatever… well, In Exodus 24:12 God instructed Moses, “…Come up to Me into the mount, and be there: _and I will give you tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written_… The fact that they were in stone is symbolic of the desire to make them permanent. However, I lack archaeological evidence of this claim too. Certainly many don’t believe the 10 Commandments were ever written, let alone on stone, yet there may be some who do. But discussing how it’s presented in the Bible is not a terribly bad thing. I’m thinking that the wise thing would be to identify there threads as threads that are impossible to prove via _archaeological evidence_ because that evidence, bye and large, is not available. Such a requirement is then meaningless. Once again, I suggest that this was better suited for GD where members are free to take whatever they choose from the responses/discussion, or debate the merits of the opinion. But, requiring archaeological evidence in a Biblical discussion, a discussion that many base on faith, is counterproductive to a faith based dialog. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/12 "2015-09-04T03:56:17Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > In Exodus 24:12 God instructed Moses, “…Come up to Me into the mount, and be there: _and I will give you tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written_… > > The fact that they were in stone is symbolic of the desire to make them permanent. However, I lack archaeological evidence of this claim too. Then your claim has no place in GQ. > [@](#): > > Once again, I suggest that this was better suited for GD where members are free to take whatever they choose from the responses/discussion, or debate the merits of the opinion. You’re perfectly free to start a new thread in GD where you can discuss whatever interests you. But you don’t have a license to derail a question just because you want to discuss things that are not appropriate to GQ. > [@](#): > > But, requiring archaeological evidence in a Biblical discussion, a discussion that many base on faith, is counterproductive to a faith based dialog. You don’t need archaeological evidence to discuss Biblical texts, all you need to do is quote them from a standard source. You made a specific claim about some, however: that some texts were more authoritative than others because they were burned in stone, an event that there is no evidence for. Once again, I don’t feel the need to move a thread because an individual poster wants to discuss things that are not suited to GQ. That privileges your preferences over those of other posters who want a more factual discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/13 "2015-09-04T03:58:50Z")
So is there an acceptable way for him to have said, “According to the Bible, God chose to carve those particular ones in stone, as opposed to merely inspiring people to write crappy poetry. Therefore, that suggests that those were more important, and closer to his true intent”? That takes the factuality of actual stone tablets off the table, and places the interpretation in contrast to the more concrete delivery of the Commandments as an “in story” element, not an opinion about the material being presented. Because that is how I took his remark. “The Bible itself says this is more important by virtue of carving in stone directly, instead of allowing a mortal man to be inspired during a marathon meditation session.” ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/14 "2015-09-04T04:02:00Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Then your claim has no place in GQ. > > … You made a specific claim about some, however: that some texts were more authoritative than others because they were burned in stone, an event that there is no evidence for. > > … Are you sure of that? If that was challenged it would have led to a discussion and perhaps ignorance would have been fought. But we’ll never know because it’s been declared “witnessing” and ruled inappropriate in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/15 "2015-09-04T04:08:29Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > So is there an acceptable way for him to have said, “According to the Bible, God chose to carve those particular ones in stone, as opposed to merely inspiring people to write crappy poetry. Therefore, that suggests that those were more important, and closer to his true intent”? That would have been OK. **Morgenstern** instead said the event was factual. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Are you sure of that? If that was challenged it would have led to a discussion and perhaps ignorance would have been fought. But we’ll never know because it’s been declared “witnessing” and ruled inappropriate in the thread. We could find out. If it’s so important an issue to you, all you need to do is start a thread in Great Debates on it. Go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/16 "2015-09-04T04:10:47Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That would have been OK. **Morgenstern** instead said the event was factual. > > … Where did I say it was factual? ETA, what i said was…_“Perhaps there’s a reason they were burned in stone instead of God relying on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/17 "2015-09-04T04:17:20Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > So is there an acceptable way for him to have said, “According to the Bible, God chose to carve those particular ones in stone, as opposed to merely inspiring people to write crappy poetry. Therefore, that suggests that those were more important, and closer to his true intent”? > > That takes the factuality of actual stone tablets off the table, and places the interpretation in contrast to the more concrete delivery of the Commandments as an “in story” element, not an opinion about the material being presented. > > Because that is how I took his remark. See I interpreted the remark I think the way that **Colibri** did - that **Morgenstern** was quasi-witnessing about his own beliefs. His phrasing I guess. But I think your interpretation as stated above would have been perfectly fine\*. If _that_ is what **Morgenstern** actually meant then I missed it - it didn’t read that way to me at the time, though I could see where that could have been his intent. - Noting that I am not a moderator and what I consider fine obviously carries zero weight. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/18 "2015-09-04T04:18:15Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Where did I say it was factual? > > ETA, what i said was…_“Perhaps there’s a reason **they were burned in stone** instead of God relying on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word.”_ Bolding mine. You could have said “Perhaps there’s a reason the Bible says they were burned in stone.” You didn’t say that. Do you not believe the text describes a factual event? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/19 "2015-09-04T04:33:46Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Bolding mine. You could have said “Perhaps there’s a reason the Bible says they were burned in stone.” You didn’t say that. > > Do you not believe the text describes a factual event? I guessed you missed the part about… > [@God](#): > > and I will give you tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written… However, you never let the discussion progress to that point. Again, Biblical discussions are better suited for GD, IMHO, should have been moved. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865/20 "2015-09-04T04:37:16Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I guessed you missed the part about… Please answer directly. Do you, personally, believe that God burned the tablets in stone? > [@](#): > > However, you never let the discussion progress to that point. Again, Biblical discussions are better suited for GD, IMHO, should have been moved. Only if people derail them. Why don’t you want to start a new thread in GD? Why do you insist on having your own way in GQ? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibri-got-a-minute-please/729865.md?page=2)