Ten Commandments written on both sides of two tablets

[imoneru?]

The bible tells us that when Moses presented the two tablets to God He God wrote the Ten Commandments on BOTH sides of the tablets, (Exodus 32:15) can anyone tell me if the bible anywhere gives us information as to what was written on the flip side of the tablets that are usually displayed togather showing only the one side with 5 commandments on each, or acassionally 1 tablet with all 10.

[imoneru?]

The bible tells us that when Moses presented the two tablets to God He God wrote the Ten Commandments on BOTH sides of the tablets, (Exodus 32:15) can anyone tell me if the bible anywhere gives us information as to what was written on the flip side of the tablets that are usually displayed togather showing only the one side with 5 commandments on each, or acassionally 1 tablet with all 10.

In researching my own question I find that in Mathew Henrys Commintary he says in regard to my question (and I quote from him):
"God himself, without the ministry either of man or angel (for aught that appears), wrote the ten commandments on these tables, on both their sides, some on one table and some on the other, so that they were folded together like a book, to be deposited in the ark."

However this still leaves me with the question of why MAN has chosen to put the writing of the commendments only on one side and to display them as such. and in so doing change the word of God which is forbidden, I note that Man is equally guilty of changing Gods word by placing the Magi in the Nativity Displays.

Unless it is a misunderstanding of the wording on my part when it was written "on both sides" it really ment "Written on both tablets"

[Byblos]

The bible tells us that when Moses presented the two tablets to God He God wrote the Ten Commandments on BOTH sides of the tablets, (Exodus 32:15) can anyone tell me if the bible anywhere gives us information as to what was written on the flip side of the tablets that are usually displayed togather showing only the one side with 5 commandments on each, or acassionally 1 tablet with all 10.

In researching my own question I find that in Mathew Henrys Commintary he says in regard to my question (and I quote from him):
"God himself, without the ministry either of man or angel (for aught that appears), wrote the ten commandments on these tables, on both their sides, some on one table and some on the other, so that they were folded together like a book, to be deposited in the ark."

However this still leaves me with the question of why MAN has chosen to put the writing of the commendments only on one side and to display them as such. and in so doing change the word of God which is forbidden, I note that Man is equally guilty of changing Gods word by placing the Magi in the Nativity Displays.

Unless it is a misunderstanding of the wording on my part when it was written "on both sides" it really ment "Written on both tablets"

I would suspect it to be just a matter of convenience. Much easier to display the commandments on one side of 2 tablets than it is on both sides.

[cslewislover]

My NIV bible states it pretty clearly, at least how they interpreted it for the translation: "Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back."

But isn't it far more important that we obey what God wrote, not copy the form in which he originally showed us? We don't read the biblical manuscripts in their original form either. Man has not changed God's word, but just the form in which the word is presented.

Since the timing of the Magi has been contended, why are you concerned with it? I've never thought that people were trying to change the word of God by having the Magi in the nativity scene; it's normally a matter of interpretation, not disrespect or blasphemy, as far as I know.

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God
(Micah 6:8)

[imoneru?]

My NIV bible states it pretty clearly, at least how they interpreted it for the translation: "Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back."

But isn't it far more important that we obey what God wrote, not copy the form in which he originally showed us? We don't read the biblical manuscripts in their original form either. Man has not changed God's word, but just the form in which the word is presented.

Since the timing of the Magi has been contended, why are you concerned with it? I've never thought that people were trying to change the word of God by having the Magi in the nativity scene; it's normally a matter of interpretation, not disrespect or blasphemy, as far as I know.

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God
(Micah 6:8)

I guess it bothers me because little by little we seem to be chipping away at the bible by changing the wording of passages in new translations that confuse people who see or are told one thing and then when we read the accounts in the bible for ourselves we find discripencys such as one in the latest translations (the NET bible) saying forgive those who wrong you 7 times 7 instead of 70 times 7 as in all the other older translations such as the KJV or NKJV. In doing so we pass on to the next generation that which is now trivia and it becomes accepted scripture. Is it any wonder young Christians ask "now that I have accepted Christ which bible should I read?" as little by little as we change wording we change the message. The KJV and the NKJV only mentions that statemant in their versions about the Ten Commandments "as being written on both sides" but not "front and back" as the NIV does.
I realize that is implied but could it not be that the tablets were laid side by side and God wrote 5 commandments on one on the left side (face up) and then 5 on the right side (face up) as we have always seen them displayed? As the bible books have always been the subject of personal interpitation (hense the many different denominations) that who ever translated the NIV translation never considered that the passage might be misinterpited as you and I may have done.

[cslewislover]

I guess it bothers me because little by little we seem to be chipping away at the bible by changing the wording of passages in new translations that confuse people who see or are told one thing and then when we read the accounts in the bible for ourselves we find discripencys such as one in the latest translations (the NET bible) saying forgive those who wrong you 7 times 7 instead of 70 times 7 as in all the other older translations such as the KJV or NKJV. In doing so we pass on to the next generation that which is now trivia and it becomes accepted scripture. Is it any wonder young Christians ask "now that I have accepted Christ which bible should I read?" as little by little as we change wording we change the message. The KJV and the NKJV only mentions that statemant in their versions about the Ten Commandments "as being written on both sides" but not "front and back" as the NIV does.

I realize that is implied but could it not be that the tablets were laid side by side and God wrote 5 commandments on one on the left side (face up) and then 5 on the right side (face up) as we have always seen them displayed? As the bible books have always been the subject of personal interpitation (hense the many different denominations) that who ever translated the NIV translation never considered that the passage might be misinterpited as you and I may have done.

Yes, I think what you say is very important. I don't agree with having some of the modern translations that put in even more interpretations via their amplifications. As for the NIV, though, I'm sure they considered it very much. I think in every NIV, and probably most others, there's a section in the front about how they translated it. In my bible, it's the "Preface to the NIV". It was managed by a group of 15 from around the world, representing different denominations. Then, each book was assigned to a team of scholars, not just one person. Then the translation was reviewed three times by three different groups. So I think they were really aware of the tablets issue, and decided that the translation they chose was the best. I'm not saying they're always right, I'm just explaining.

I have one issue myself between the KJV/NKJV and the NIV, and that is with the word "beauty." In many places in the NIV, the word "beauty" was changed to "glory." I've wanted to learn Koine Greek (well, the OT would be in Hebrew), but haven't, so I can't understand this or know if it's a good change. To me, I don't think it is, but I want to know God's original meaning, not man's. Anyway, it makes an important difference to me. "Beauty" is something that I think we can relate to more than "glory." If I say that Jesus is beautiful and I want to see his beauty, it means something different than saying "glory." Glory seems more remote and powerful, and something I can't really share - at least right now. But beauty is different.

It seems to me that there are places where the translations would be better changed, however. But how does one decide? If God says Thou Shall Not Kill, shouldn't it be "Thou Shall Not Murder," if that is what it means? If Jesus meant that you should not be so angry with someone that you seriously curse them to hell (by calling them a "fool"), as Matthew 5:22 supposedly means, then why don't we translate that meaning? I don't know. These are interesting issues.

[ellensmyth]

Items written on the front and on the backside are contracts, covenants, and deeds. Telling us that the 10 commandments were written on the front and the backside tells us that the land covenant of Israel - and indeed the whole world (according to Jewish tradition, the Mount Sinai event of the giving of the law was given to the whole world as a contract) - comes with both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is the land and prosperity in the land but also the promise of becoming a kingdom of priests, Ex 19:6, and the curse would be to be removed from the land and its prosperity.

The 7-sealed scroll of Rev 5 (and indeed the cause of the 7 seal judgments, the 7 trumpet judgments, and the 7 bowl judgments) is actually the 10 commandments, as we see when the ark of the covenant, the ark that holds this land covenant of the 10 Commandments, arrives suddenly and unannounced in Rev 11 immediately after the 7th trumpet, where the 7 trumpets announce that God has reclaimed His possession of the whole earth just as He reclaimed the land of Israel with the 7 trumpets of Jericho and marching the ark of the covenant around Jericho 7 times. The land of Israel at that time, at the fall of Jericho, had stored up enough sin for God to come and repossess the land. When the entire earth gets that much sin, God will repossess the entire earth with the same ark and the same 10 Commandments and the same 7 trumpets.

Here are the key passages for the land covenant attached to the 10 Commandments: Exodus 19:4–6; 24:7; Deuteronomy 6:1–6; 7:11–14; 8:17–20; 9:4–7; and Deut 28.

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known. And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal. —Deut 11:26-29