The Ten Commandments Logically Proven: Can There Be Exceptions To The Law?

By Kingsley C. Nurse

There are those who seek consistent physical proof whereupon they might base their religious beliefs and faith, hearkening only to any such accounts that deliver sight-based presentations with sustained visible metrics.

 

And while this can be a convincing way to allure the questioning and free-thinking mind, often these computer-generated similes and imaginative theories leave you merely questioning more, for how can there be such a stark contrast between what we know and what God's Law tells us?

 

This is where some will seek to mislead you, regaling you with beautifully rendered imagery meant to represent a hypothesized or unproven theory as fact, all while presenting arguments contrary to God's Word and His Never-changing Law. However, this book will do no such thing. God's word will be exemplified, and His Holy name magnified.

 

Thus in holy fervence, I challenge you to follow along through a series of intellectual arguments meant to analyze and interpret inconsistencies and fallacies many people use in finding excuses to ignore God's Law: The Ten Commandments.

 

As such, let us journey together, as I explore each commandment and precept, dissecting several points attached to each divine mandate with a logical and common sense premise, arriving at the basis whereby it can be consistently seen that the Law is and always has been, Perfect, altogether Holy, and completely without Exception.

 

The Ten Commandments Logically Proven.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Short Sweet and Subtle Books
• Release date: Sep 14, 2022
• ISBN: 9798215453476

Book preview

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;

The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;

The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;

The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;

The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;

The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold;

Sweeter also than honey, and the honeycomb.

Moreover by them your servant is warned,

And in keeping them, there is great reward.

Psalm  19:11-17

The Ten Commandments

Logically Proven:

Can There Be Exceptions To The Law?

The Ten Commandments Logically Proven:

Can There Be Exceptions To Th e Law?

All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2022.

Kingsley C. Nurse.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, and/or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or any other electronic or mechanical methods, without explicit consent from the author and owner of this work. Any references to any work otherwise not credited, belongs to the author of the original work, and are in collective agreement with my ideas, opinions and viewpoints if expressly and purposefully written.

Short Sweet and Subtle Books

P.O. Box

Stamford, CT 06902

Printed in the United States of America.

First Edition, 2022.

E-book Edition, 2022

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. King James Version, KJV, 1611.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. New Century Version, NCV, 1983.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. Easy To Read Version, ERV, 1987.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. English Standard Version, ESV, 2001.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. Good News Translation, GNT, 1966.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. New Living Translation, NLT, 1996.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. New American Bible, NAB, 1970.

Referenced, Holy Bible, The. New Intl. Version, NIV, 1978.

Referenced, Heaven. E.G. White. Published in 2003.

Referenced, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2022.

Referenced, Lexico/Oxford Dictionary, 2022.

Referenced, Science.org, 2022.

Thanks:

To The Eternal Father, our Lord God, who has mercifully and graciously given us His Immutable Law.

May we keep it with Reverence, Awe and Love.

To Jesus our Savior, for enabling us through His imparted grace and compassion, to understand and cherish the Law.

Written For:

You, Me, and All of the Human Race.

Dedicated To:

Every soul that seeks to know of the Law of God.

May you find a small modicum of light to help guide your study and spiritual journey in Jesus name.

Table of Contents

An Intellectual Defense of the Concepts and Statements made in this Book

Introduction and Purpose of this Work

Chapter Prelude: What Exactly is the Law? What are the Ten Commandments?

Chapter One: I AM THE LORD. Thou Shalt Have No Other gods Before Me.

Chapter Two: Thou Shalt Not Make or Worship any graven Images or Idols.

Chapter Three: Thou Shalt Not take The Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain.

Chapter Four: Remember The Sabbath Day to Keep it Holy.

Chapter Five: Honor your Father and your Mother.

Chapter Six: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Chapter Seven: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

Chapter Eight: Thou Shalt Not Steal.

Chapter Nine: Thou Shalt Not bear False Witness.

Chapter Ten: Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Chapter Eleven: The First Greatest Commandment: Love The Lord Your God.

Chapter Twelve: The Second Greatest Commandment: Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.

Chapter Thirteen: A New Commandment Given: Love One another as I have Loved You.

Chapter Fourteen: The Realization of Blessings and The Pronouncement of Curses.

Conclusion: Our Strict Obligation to the Law and its future Reward.

Epilogue

References

An Intellectual Defense of the Concepts and Statements made in this Book

B

efore you arrive at the introduction and purpose for this work, I felt it necessary to mention something very important to me. I would have all who should read this book be notified, that I am fully cognizant and aware of the nature and proclivity of the statements I make within this work. I seek to impart what I have come to know, or more specifically, what I have come to believe, and these statements are based solely on faith and knowledge of religious teaching and writing, and also upon the study of the Word of God. Still, the skeptical mind may seek to draw upon some form of anchor to resist these concepts. Of course, many still ascribe to the age-old sentiment that "seeing is believing". In other words, without hard evidence, they simply won’t believe.

The Bible itself, even though providentially and divinely inspired, and also printed and distributed more abundantly than any other book in history, is still seemingly shadowed in doubt by those who seek to be exempt from its claims. There are those who cast darkness on God’s word, stating that they do not, and cannot believe a book written solely by men as being God’s express word. In regards to certain specified topics, especially ones where the mind is engaged in a struggle to believe the seen vs the unseen, and the known vs the unknown, it is a surety that some will declare that it is not enough to simply make declarative statements (such as what I have endeavored to make within this book) without definitive and viable proof. "If you are to secure my agreement and affection to your cause, says the incredulous mind, you must prove it through a sustained visible and observable argument."

But alas, can anything physically prove the existence of celestial spirits, or perhaps life on other worlds? Can any thought-provoking discussion derive a consensus whereby we can settle upon the conclusion that aliens exist? Can our past or current science do anything remotely close to proving that which is not able to be proven? No. It is impossible to prove definitively that aliens or life on other worlds exist. Likewise, it is impossible for us to prove spiritual existence with evidence sufficient to satisfy the human eye. Thus it is solely by theory, from the scientific perspective and the sheer scope and size of the observable universe that science supposes that some sort of life must exist out there, and it is by the wonderful and unexplainable occurrences in nature and life that Christians believe that God is out there.

However, I do not solely rely on this as an anchor for my belief. I, as with all believing Christians to a greater degree, choose to place my hopes on spiritual faith, based within the religious perspective, that God created other worlds, with the full administration of life upon them. This in its most basic application, calls for a leap and practice of faith, no different than reading and believing words and statutes written by men inspired of God and recorded for our good, just the same as encouraging others to believe in a hypothetical theory or premise written by scholarly men for scientific edification.

Thus acknowledging this, it can be recognized that we are faced with two different types of belief systems and paradigms, existing as it were, side by side. However what I have found, is that the world is altogether quite quick to believe scientific statements by men when it suits denial of God and His word, but when drawn towards the statements of men in harmony with faith and belief in God, then the task becomes altogether too hard to swallow.

It would appear that in matters of religious precedent, and only in matters of religious precedent, physical and prominent evidence is somehow demanded and required, yet science as a field and construct, can simply get away with presenting supposed unproved theories and hypotheses meant to try to explain some mechanism of existence that lies beyond our comprehension. This is, in and of itself, a biased premise, and one that many people do not recognize as legitimately happening in the course of unbiased intellectual discussion. In truth I tell you, that in all my studies and endeavors, I have often discovered that only one side is treated with fair intellectual and philosophical consistency, while the other is burdened with the task of originating proof of stake.

To explain what I mean, let me ask this. Why, in the course of exposition upon Biblical topics as a frame of context, must the religious speaker or writer be pressed with such responsibilities and burdens as to prove what science simply cannot? Again I ask, why must religion explain what God has not determined to reveal to us, when science, which chooses not to subsist on a belief in God, also fails to produce succinct evidence to prove their theories, or for that matter, disprove the religious aspect?

To this biased state of affairs, I say no. I shall never engage upon the grounds or framework of any rational question, or submit to any construct whereby the burden is placed on my intellect or any rational religious mind, to produce sufficient evidence of any statement that perhaps God has not physically showed us proof of, yet in faith we believe in, whereas the mind who does not take hold upon God, is free from the burden to logically or visibly produce evidence for these often accepted, but quite unproven scientific theories.

In other words, if you were to ask me to religiously prove, for instance, that God created life on other worlds, I shall ask you to disprove it first with your science. If you say that you thus cannot do so, then I shall answer you that I am also unable to do the same. I say this whimsically, yet in all fervency. When the day comes, when science shall cease to theorize, and shall prove life walking around or existing on Pluto or perhaps on some planet orbiting Antares or Spica, and they can prove that God did not make them (which shall never happen) then on that day the religious writer or speaker can be burdened with the responsibility to better exemplify and codify the reasoning behind their faith-based claims.

Until then, allow me the grace whereby I may substantiate my statements without an expectation of full reliance on hard evidence or sight-based proof. Science may demand physical or theoretical proof. Religion does not. Science may demand explanations outside of the realm and power of God. Religion demands only faith.

Within this work, I shall endeavor to never attack or demean the scientific explanation of any concept or theory held by any non-religious physicist, scientist, or philosopher alike, regardless of the disharmony existing between current scientific sentiment and that of religious faith, and as such, I ask those who shall perhaps read this work that are not religiously inclined to also do the same.

This I believe to be logically and consistently fair.

Introduction and Purpose of this Work

O

ne Sabbath eve, I was reading the Bible online, looking at some of my favorite verses and passages. Whilst doing so, it dawned upon me to go and look at the Wikipedia page that was being maintained for The Ten Commandments. I already know them distinctly by heart, as I assume most Christians do, but I wanted to see and read the solemn wording once again and glean the explanation the site presented for each precept, knowing that the purported concept behind Wikipedia is that all knowledge is contributed from and by the public. Thus I figured it would at best, give me a good conscription of the current public view and opinion of this, a most sacred and holy set of words.

Prior to this, I had never thought to go and visit this webpage, but being in this day and age, I have come to feel that it is sometimes to your disadvantage to ignore the nigh unlimited resources available to you online. This includes all legitimate encyclopedic sites along with peer-reviewed databases filled with relevant scholarly articles. Once there however, I was to my great dismay, greeted by a page awash with historical symbols and representations, with many flaws and inaccuracies on the website regarding The Law of God, with marked omissions and unclear, inaccurate and convoluted language dedicated to topics irrelevant to the precepts themselves.

One has to look no further than the outline and structure of the page, with high levels of disorganization along with fairly wide contextual representations, establishing as it were, a storytelling-like topical outline, meant to provide more of a reference to what certain religious entities feel about The Ten Commandments, rather than its complete presentation. Further, there appeared to be a large section hilariously and erroneously assigned to United States Property Debates, which literally should have no place on this page, regardless of the connection one can make to specific commandments, that is, in focusing on the taking or coveting of property.

Upon reading through the entire summary, I concluded that the presented text suffered from unnecessary historical lore, bogging itself down with religious allegories and symbolic analogies. The text attempted to focus solely on explaining old Hebrew texts and narratives, all apart from the Bible, providing very little in the way of in-depth explanation for each commandment. Even if, in the interest of bolstering active content to supplement the reader’s attention span, it was somehow deemed admissible to include a certain amount of this type of text for historical purposes, the page itself still suffered greatly from what appeared to be rife cherry-picking of presented portions and preferences to selected religions and creeds, omitting a few prominent and key religious organizations who exemplify the Ten Commandments as their sole moral guide and foundation.

This I was not ok with, for I sought not to read historical allegory or lore associated with The Ten Commandments, but a well-laid out listing featuring the complete Commandments themselves, accurately and without error, using scholarly and Biblical explanations. Or, if this were not possible, then perhaps in the least, a somewhat surface-level exposition of each commandment. So to that, I simply ask: was this a wrongful presumption? Did I unfairly expect something that was not possible to do? Well, I do not think so. For how can it be, that the Bible (or at least, a reference to old Jewish or Greek scrolls/writings) is not prominently featured as the main foundational reference and reliance? Did not the Ten Commandments come directly from the Bible, and by extension, old Jewish and Greek texts translated to English for the modern age? Should not the Bible be the focal point and reference for this topic, regardless of how one may feel about its application or etiology?

Thus, at discovering that no such page existed along with any semblance of my pre-determined hopes, I decided confidently to go ahead and edit the Wikipedia page, believing in the construct that they [the site] themselves boast upon; that is, that they purport an open and free ability to all to edit and contribute information. This I have done successfully before, and feeling that I could contribute my knowledge (that is, the Biblical perspective) to the page, I set about adding the truthful Biblical knowledge and contextual perspective for each commandment and precept. Of course, the premise and promise of public editorial power is quite literally a lie, and the site fails miserably in this advertised aspect alone. We shall see why I state this in a bit, but for now, I digress.

I proceeded to spend that whole Friday evening editing the Wikipedia page, correcting the inaccurate texts and presented commandments, clarifying and separating each commandment, and adding info only as it is shown in the Bible, the true Word of God. My personal opinion was not included, save to state that each commandment rightfully forbids each proscribed action to the benefit of man and his moral good. I also sought to remove great inaccuracies and errors presented on the page itself, for they had erroneously and inaccurately broken up the first commandment into two parts, and omitted one of the other express precepts. This is of course, a major error that must be corrected. I also endeavored to clean up sections irrelevant to the topic and subject of the Law itself.

Upon completion, I submitted the edits and waited, fully willing to place my name on, and back up these edits, and I was happy to know that I spent time on the Sabbath dedicated to something I felt would benefit others. This I felt was indeed a worthwhile thing, if not solely to clarify and simplify the wording presented for those who like me, might go and visit the webpage (that is, apart from the Bible itself) to read the Sacred Law.  

However, to my great dismay, after submitting my work, my edits were returned as rejected. I cannot now remember the exact words they used to describe the rejection, but I remember it being along the lines of "not neutral and too controversial" as if the subject being written on could somehow be likened to neutral reasoning and words meant to straddle both sides of the fence in an attempt not to offend.

Let me make this clear. The Law of God is not neutral. It is not something we need to reduce in power or explanation to avoid offense to others. What is given is given. It is completely perfect and is in fact, quite biased; that is, towards the concepts of righteousness and moral perfection. To clarify, I use the term biased in this context to show that the Law does not need to be interpreted in such a way as to neutralize or lessen its demands on some, but not others. The Law demands adherence and obedience from all. It is universal in its application, and thus biased towards its demands.

The Law of God is, in its complete and untampered presentation, simple to understand, straightforward, yet strict in its requirements, and perfect in its practice and utility. It is not something we can make lose its power by only writing about it in muted terms, or with a mind to avoid controversial exposition. The Ten Commandments should not be presented in any light that seeks to dumb down its language or remove offense to those who deny its claims. In presenting the Law of God, no part of it should be portrayed as a historical derivative of something else. This present moratorium saddens me to a great extent, as these clear inaccuracies and errors still reside as it is now on Wikipedia and other supposed public encyclopedic sites, even to this present moment.

But why make such a big deal about a few irrelevant sites on the internet? Who cares what Wikipedia says? Well, there are quite a few reasons why this is important. There are some who frequent the site and use it as their online base of information and knowledge, despite the rife nature of inaccuracies and errors it currently presents. This cannot be denied. Many online users rely heavily on Wikipedia for relevant and accurate information, which often then appears in scholarly research and even peer-reviewed papers. As such, there should be a duty to protect the integrity and validity of all information rendered and presented on the site, much more so and to a greater extent, religious precepts along with Biblical ideology, regardless of how others feel about the information itself.

I put forward a simple example to make my point. Should we put on Wikipedia that the day contains only 22 hours, instead of 24, because a certain sect of humans are offended by this? After all, we want to be fair and neutral to them, and include the inaccurate assumptions of some, lest it offend them. Or perhaps it would make sense to also state on such sites as these,