10 Commandments Twice Removed - Amazon $0.01, what does it say in a nutshell? Options

[LaurenceD]

I'd like to read this book, if only to review it. A used copy looks affordable for a mere $0.01, but not sure I want to pay shipping. I read the reviews this morning hoping to learn a little more about it, but not one positive review. Actually, some serious complaints about deception of the title, and background on front cover.

http://www.amazon.com/Commandments-Twice-R...n/dp/1883012406

All reviews (a must read!)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...customerReviews

Anyone know of an online version, or excerpts, like Quinn's other book? I don't think my folks have this one.

[Statrei]

I'd like to read this book, if only to review it. A used copy looks affordable for a mere $0.01, but not sure I want to pay shipping. I read the reviews this morning hoping to learn a little more about it, but not one positive review. Actually, some serious complaints about deception of the title, and background on front cover.
&n=283155#customerReviews"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...customerReviews[/url]

Anyone know of an online version, or excerpts, like Quinn's other book? I don't think my folks have this one.

Call around. Some church must have it on its magazine rack. They may even have a couple of boxes in the back.

[LaurenceD]

Good idea, Statrei. I see some of the Amazon reviewers got the book for free at SDA "propaganda" stands. I'll call around and find one.

From the Amazon review page, I found these comments interesting...

Nicholas writes: No non-seventh day adventist would want to read this if they thought it was just about why sdas were right and they were wrong. But the title/cover appeals to non-sda christians, and hence they will unknowingly be exposed to sda propaganda, which is exactly what sdas want.

One reviewer referred to SDAism as a "cult" and this reviewer questions the authors real motives. I can't help but wonder if this book is really improving the worlds impression of Adventists.

C. Arasi writes: Hence, the authors argue, the 10 Commandments are twice removed. Once removed out of public life, and removed again in a spiritual sense by our failure to strictly follow the fourth Commandment by observing the Sabbath on Saturday. The second removal is by far the central theme of this book.

The title of this book would lead one to think that it's about the politics of having the Ten Commandments in public buildings. This book doesn't talk about the political issue hardly at all. Out of 125 pages, this book only briefly mentions the political controversy in less than two pages. It's for this reason that I am curious as to why previous reviewer of this book, Mr. Gallon, wrote what he wrote. He obviously didn't read the book.

I gave this book only three stars because the title is a little deceiving. "Ten Commandments Twice Removed" is not about the politics of keeping the Ten Commandments in public buildings. It's not even about the Ten Commandments as much as it's a treatise on why the Christian Sabbath should be on Saturday. The book should properly be titled "Why Christians Should Go To Church On Saturday" as that's the ultimate point that the authors are trying to make.

Is this what the book is really all about--the Sabbath--and they placed the tables of stone against a court house on the front cover as a selling tactic?

Shin Gallon writes: Quite simply, the US was NOT founded on Christian principles, nor are the Ten Commandments in any way, shape or form the inspiration for the Constitution. Please read some history on the real intentions of the Founding Fathers, instead of propagandist claptrap like this book.

I wonder if there are any real historians at 3abn, or intellectuals for that matter, that are familiar with the beliefs of most of our well-known founding fathers--Deism--and how those beliefs differs from Christianity.

[Richard Sherwin]

If your intent is to write a book that will maximize your royalties then you cater to those who will buy it. In this case that would be SDA's. You write it for those most likely to buy it, not those most likely to benefit from it.

[4reneyonly]

If your intent is to write a book that will maximize your royalties then you cater to those who will buy it. In this case that would be SDA's. You write it for those most likely to buy it, not those most likely to benefit from it.

DITTO.

[beartrap]

If your intent is to write a book that will maximize your royalties then you cater to those who will buy it. In this case that would be SDA's. You write it for those most likely to buy it, not those most likely to benefit from it.

The same could be true of religious television and donations.

[PrincessDrRe]

If your intent is to write a book that will maximize your royalties then you cater to those who will buy it. In this case that would be SDA's. You write it for those most likely to buy it, not those most likely to benefit from it.

The same could be true of religious television and donations.

Whoooooo..... Gon' head nah....

[SoulEspresso]

IMO the book is a shame on the church. Bad Bible scholarship, and worse, a bad attitude towards other Christians. Represents the worst in Adventism.

Of course you have to be careful which circles you say this in, because they might think you're persecuting the authors.

[Rosyroi]

Have mercy on our souls if we appear to be persecuting the authors of book we are discussing.

waiting for my computer to crash for appearing to persecute said authors....

[Pickle]

Good idea, Statrei. I see some of the Amazon reviewers got the book for free at SDA "propaganda" stands. I'll call around and find one.

From the Amazon review page, I found these comments interesting...

Nicholas writes: No non-seventh day adventist would want to read this if they thought it was just about why sdas were right and they were wrong. But the title/cover appeals to non-sda christians, and hence they will unknowingly be exposed to sda propaganda, which is exactly what sdas want.

One reviewer referred to SDAism as a "cult" and this reviewer questions the authors real motives. I can't help but wonder if this book is really improving the worlds impression of Adventists.

C. Arasi writes: Hence, the authors argue, the 10 Commandments are twice removed. Once removed out of public life, and removed again in a spiritual sense by our failure to strictly follow the fourth Commandment by observing the Sabbath on Saturday. The second removal is by far the central theme of this book.

The title of this book would lead one to think that it's about the politics of having the Ten Commandments in public buildings. This book doesn't talk about the political issue hardly at all. Out of 125 pages, this book only briefly mentions the political controversy in less than two pages. It's for this reason that I am curious as to why previous reviewer of this book, Mr. Gallon, wrote what he wrote. He obviously didn't read the book.

I gave this book only three stars because the title is a little deceiving. "Ten Commandments Twice Removed" is not about the politics of keeping the Ten Commandments in public buildings. It's not even about the Ten Commandments as much as it's a treatise on why the Christian Sabbath should be on Saturday. The book should properly be titled "Why Christians Should Go To Church On Saturday" as that's the ultimate point that the authors are trying to make.

Is this what the book is really all about--the Sabbath--and they placed the tables of stone against a court house on the front cover as a selling tactic?

Shin Gallon writes: Quite simply, the US was NOT founded on Christian principles, nor are the Ten Commandments in any way, shape or form the inspiration for the Constitution. Please read some history on the real intentions of the Founding Fathers, instead of propagandist claptrap like this book.

I wonder if there are any real historians at 3abn, or intellectuals for that matter, that are familiar with the beliefs of most of our well-known founding fathers--Deism--and how those beliefs differs from Christianity.

Roger Williams is the one who established civil and religious freedom in Rhode Island with the basic principle that the state can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as they eprtain to outward actions, but the first table is off limits.

A. T. Jones in his 1889 book The National Sunday Law gives a Bible study that establishes that principle from Scripture.

Ellen White refers to William's principle in different words in Great Controversy. She also refers to a future Sunday law as being an act of apostasy by our Protestant and Republican government.

If Jones was right that the Bible teaches Williams' principle, then a truly Protestant government that takes the Bible as the final authority would guarantee religious freedom for all, unless their acts of worship violated one of the last 6 commandments, such as the act of human sacrifice.

I do not see how a Catholic or Islamic or atheistic government can guarantee religious freedom. But I do see how a Protestant government can, as long as it doesn't apostatize from its basic principle of following Scripture, including where Scripture declares that theocracy is no more until the second coming, and until then the only things that belong to Caesar to enforce are things that eprtain to our duty to our fellow man, such as the things described in the second table of the Decalog.

[Pickle]

By the way, I see some sites that sell used books have a 2005 edition for sale. Anyone know anything about the 2005 edition?

[Rosyroi]

By the way, I see some sites that sell used books have a 2005 edition for sale. Anyone know anything about the 2005 edition?

I tried to find my edition to see if it was the 2005 edition but remembered I gave it to someone else. As far as I know it was the first edition and had a few more pages than the later edition and there were more words included in the title than the later editions.

So much for trying to be helpful...

[LaurenceD]

I do not see how a Catholic or Islamic or atheistic government can guarantee religious freedom. But I do see how a Protestant government can, as long as it doesn't apostatize from its basic principle of following Scripture, including where Scripture declares that theocracy is no more until the second coming, and until then the only things that belong to Caesar to enforce are things that eprtain to our duty to our fellow man, such as the things described in the second table of the Decalog.

I can't quite picture a Catholic, Islamic, Protestant, or atheistic government in this country without that government enacting some type of theonomical laws. But, as shown, we can have people of differing beliefs participate in a democracy...encouraging, protecting, and tolerating others right to worship as they please. Freedom of worship, even in a democracy, must be curbed in such a way that it does not become a nuisance to others. I agree there is a line of distinction between the two tables, generally, but from the second table I only see a couple that are the basis for some of our civil laws.

Many of our best know founding fathers were not Christian in the same sense that we define Christianity. Washington, though a church goer, kept his beliefs to himself. He was very strict about this. Jefferson wrote his own NT, eliminating much of Christ's words, to suit his own beliefs. Paine's views were ever changing, but certainly not Christian in any traditional sense that Protestants could accept.

IMO the book is a shame on the church. Bad Bible scholarship, and worse, a bad attitude towards other Christians. Represents the worst in Adventism.

Care to elaborate a little? I haven't read the book and haven't found a copy yet.

[SoulEspresso]

Care to elaborate a little? I haven't read the book and haven't found a copy yet.

Let me see if I can get this right ...Try this from an earlier discussion.

Wow, it worked!

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Oct 25 2007, 07:23 AM

[princessdi]

Here is the thing about the original Tan Commandments Weekend that I dont' unerstand at all. Well, let me go back a minute. They distributed that book at my church and I didn't even take one, at all. I didnt' even know aobut this stuff, and I knew there was something wrong with that book. However, we do have reports of people coming into the Adventist church because of it, so I guess some purpose was served.

Now, back to my orginal query that may or may not be completely off topic, so can you all please indulge me a moment. Can someone explain to me how Danny hijacked the t'en Commandments weekend? It iwas not his idea. I first heard about it on TBN. It was the religious right and those affiliated with them, also with some of the most prominent of the chrismatic movement who stated this thing.....website and all. I went there before I heard anything about 3ABN participating. In fact, I initially thought that 3ABN had just joined that group. However, when all was said and done, it looked to be pretty much cancelled by the others with 3ABN solely making a hug progamming project of it, complete with a book hastily thrown together by he and Shelly. If someone can just explaint hat to me, I realy would appreciate it.