>"Agent 007" <Agent...@three.com> wrote in message
>news:11mn6ra8ramfhed@news.supernews.com...
>> http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=651

>**********
>First of all, we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor promises in it.
>The New Covenant, we are told, "was established upon better promises." Verse
>6. Tell me, has anyone ever been able to point out any poor promises in the
>Ten Commandments?
>**********

>Diversion.  The 10 commandments were the words of the covenant.  The author
>does not believe this.

>Exo 34:28 KJV  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights;
>he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the
>words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

>Hebrews 8:6 - "established upon better promises" - the New Covenant is
>established on better promises.

>By the same token, the Old Covenant would have been established on promises
>that were not as good.  ("Established" doesn't mean that the 10 commandments
>contain every promise.)  They WERE good promises, as far as those contained
>in the words themselves go, but, as Heb 8:7 says, they were not faultless.

>The author is deliberately leading us to wonder why the 10 commandments
>contain no poor promises, as if anybody has claimed that.  He is misleading
>us into thinking that promises that are not faultless are by definition
>"poor."

>He says: "we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor promises in it."
>But that is NOT what the Bible says.  It says:

>"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have
>been sought for the second." - Heb 8:7

>Nothing about promises, either in the 10 commandments, or establishing them.
>He wants us to "notice" something that isn't there.  And when we see that
>the promises he points to are good ones, we can't deny that his point ...
>unless we actually look at what the Bible says, and not where he is trying
>to lead us to.

>He is creating as straw man in order to refute Exodus 34:28, which says the
>10 commandments were the words of the covenant.

>The Old Covenant did not contain poor promises, it contained good ones, but
>not faultless ones.  The New Covenant gave us better ones - the faultless
>ones.

>Exodus 34:28 still holds - sorry Agent 007.

>God bless,
>Stephen