JFJ Forums - TALMUD

Part III

rev320 Wrote:

3) Judaism has at least two different versions of the Oral Torah, ...

This is simply born out of ignorance of the facts. Abraham, knew the Torah, this is evidenced from the Torah itself, where Abraham prepares for Passover. In addition, the Torah is understood to be the blueprint of the world. The World is built on the Torah. If the Torah is only implemented with an Oral Torah, then it stands to reason that the Oral Torah is also inherent in the creation of the world. Take for example, a Chameleon. The Chameleon has DNA (kind of like the Torah), that tells its skin to change color given a particular place it is resting on. Does the DNA have all the colors in the world? What about multiple colors? How is it that the DNA 'knows' what color it is? It doesn't. The DNA simply presents itself as a mechanism. When the Chameleon rests on one object, (the variance), is taken and implemented. This is like the Oral Torah - the implementation of the Torah.

You assume that the Oral Tradition has to exist when the Torah was given. Tell me, who gave the Oral Torah? G-d!

Can G-d tell Abraham what to do? YES, can G-d tell Abraham the Oral Torah? YES!

rev320 Wrote:

4) Traditions change. Noah and Moses, I'm sure, did not wear the black suit and hat of the Hasidim. How do you know the tzitzis of Moses looked like the tzitzis of today described in the Oral Torah? Prove the tradition of sacrifice for atonement has not changed since Moses.

Is a black suit part of the Oral Tradition?  Is it written anywhere in the Torah or Oral Torah the type of dress that is necessary to be Jewish? NO!
that means there can be wide variance.

I'll give an example.

During the Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkos).  Jews are commanded to take a Willow branch, Myrtle and palm branch together with what the Torah calls: a beautiful fruit.

According to you, that means we should expect local variance - in Poland, where the weather is cold, I would expect Jews to use something like a berry, in Spain, where the weather is temperate, I would expect anything from Oranges, to Apples.  I mean, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Our Oral tradition tells us, that it is the fruit of the Citroen - Esrog, that is to be used.  The Talmud records that there is a 'disagreement' among the sages whether it has to be an Esrog, or any variety of this type of fruit - the closest relative being a lemon.  In fact, the dissenting view, agrees that it is an Esrog, but simply suggests another option.

Every Jewish community in the world, ever, whether it is from Turkey, India, Spain, Yemen, America, Germany, Israel, Russia, Poland has always
used the Esrog.  Not a single community has ever used anything else, be it a lemon, orange, berry or banana.

Strange no?  Its clear from the above example, that the Oral Tradition, is reliable.

rev320 Wrote:

Cor157 is exactly right. Start proving your suppositions. Those rabbis that wrote the Septuagint used the same Oral Torah you have, and yet they got a different result.

Have you read my post on the Septuagint?  I told you and cor517 that  the Septuagint that you have today, which people use, is not the original.  Jellicoe says it, Jellicoe is a Reverend, well respected Scholar, and Christian.

Other scholars have also said the same as Jellicoe.  The Septuagint, is not a reliable document at representing anything other than what Christian Monks believed in the 1st and 2nd Century CE.

You're basing yourself off a work written by Grinfeld, E.W. (1850) An Apology For the Septuagint, William Pickering Publishers.

It is unreliable, outdated, and really, ignores 150 years of scholarship done.  Jellicoe's work: Jellicoe, S. (1989) Septuagint and Modern Study, Eisenbrauns Publishing.

He includes this scholarship, the DSS, and a host of other critical sources.

Septuagint Wrote:

Genesis 46:27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

Exodus 1:5
But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five.

Deut 10:22,
22 With seventy souls your fathers went down into Egypt; but the Lord thy God has made thee as the stars of heaven in multitude.

Acts 7:14
    Then Joseph sent and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five in all; (NRSV)
[/color][/quote]

The Torah says, in each of these places:
Genesis 46:27, [
    The children of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two; all the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.(NRSV)]  Exo 1:5, and Deut 10:22 that Seventy people descended into Egypt.

I think its fair to say that the Septuagint is a non-starter as a good representative of anything.  It is inaccurate, and makes blatant mistakes.  The Jews do not consider it part of the Oral Torah, to begin with.  That is a sure sign that something is amiss.

I would like to point out that there is only One Oral Tradition at Sinai.  This  is clear.  Anything that contradicts the Torah, or that core Tradition, and the rules that apply to it, is not relevant.

The same reason Protestants reject the Apocrypha, Jews reject anything that is written in Greek, and contains inaccuracies as part of the Oral Torah.  If its accepted by the entire nation as binding, when the entire nation was together, makes it the Oral Torah (This is a generalized explanation).

Danny.

revelation320 Wrote:

Dannyil: Now you're shifting the burden of proof.
rev: As if this is something you never do.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

This is a fundamental point in logic.

Before you criticize me about whether or not I'm not proving a position, ask yourself: Have I asserted a position, without proving it?

cor517, has asserted that
a.) the Septuagint is a reliable document
b.) that the Masoretes added vowel-points to the text in the 10th Century
c.) that the NT and Jesus are true.
d.) that the JPS version cor517 uses is accurate.

These are 4 assertions, that have not been proved by cor517

I have shown convincingly that these assertions are incorrect.

a.) I presented the work of Jellicoe, and a link to his book.  If anyone took the time to actually read what I said, do a little research on wikipedia, or on google.books, they would find what I said was mainstream, scholarly, and accurate.  The Seputagint is not relevant, and is not reliable.
Do a search on this forum for all my points on the Septuagint.

b.) My discussion, and final answer with Jans on the Lost in translation of  Psalms 22:6, plus my response here to cor517, has shown that the initial assumption of cor517 is fundamentally flawed.  If we assume cor517 to be correct, that means for 3000 years, Jews, including individuals such as Moses David, Solomon, Ezra, Daniel etc. were unable to read their own Torah, because there were no vowel-points.

c.) A view to my previous posts shows that, if you believe that the NT is the inerrant word of God it seems that a blatant mistake such as a comparison with Acts 7:14, and Deuteronomy 10:22, shows that it is not inerrant.  Also, no-one has yet to provide a good argument as to why Jesus has not fulfilled Ezekiel 37.  The Second Coming argument has to be shown that it is viable, against the possibility that Jesus is not the Messiah, and the Messiah has not come yet.  Even you wish to reject this, I refer you to My thread entitled: "Received Texts and Testimonies" for further critique of the NT.

d.) The introduction to the JPS is a summary of the positions of the authors.  The JPS is not accepted by the Orthodox Jewish Community as a reliable translation.  The JPS is not even used by mainstream Christianity.
Enough said.  Its fair to say that the JPS is not a valid scholarly source on which to base any information on.

Now who is shifting the burden of proof exactly?

Danny.

Dannyil Wrote:

The . . . something.
Correct! You said the Oral Torah comes from Moses. Where's the evidence before you start doing more attacking?

Shifting . . . otherwise.
That's a very good quote from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/m...logic.html. Too bad you tried to pretend it was yours.

This . . . it?
Yes. Now we will watch you play the shell game again.

cor517. . . incorrect.
I wasn't so convinced.

a.) I presented the work of Jellicoe, and a link to his book.
Where? I don't see the link.
If anyone took the time to actually read what I said, do a little research on wikipedia, or on google.books, they would find what I said was mainstream, scholarly, and accurate. The Seputagint is not relevant, and is not reliable.
Since the Septuagint is very nearly the same text as the Masoretic, should we throw out the Masoretic, too? BTW, you can find that info on your wikipedia.com that you think is so scholarly.

Do a search on this forum for all my points on the Septuagint.
I'm not interested in searching for more of your "interpretations." You want to quote something, make a link or at least tell us what post to find it in.

b.) My . . . vowel-points.
This is a big assumption on your part. The following is from Judaism 101: Hebrew Alphabet:
However, as Hebrew literacy declined, particularly after the Romans expelled the Jews from Israel, the rabbis recognized the need for aids to pronunciation, so they developed a system of dots and dashes called nikkud (points). These dots and dashes are written above, below or inside the letter, in ways that do not alter the spacing of the line. Text containing these markings is referred to as "pointed" text.
I don't see anything about comprehension here, and www.jewfaq.org is a Jewish run web site.

c.) A . . . NT.
It was shown to you. You seem to think that if you reject it, the answers not true. Unfortunately, that just makes you look silly. Your like the little kid in bed who thinks that if he closes his eyes real tight, the bogeyman won't see him either.

d.) The . . . on.
I've never seen the JPS. I'll accept your argument . . . for now.

Now who is shifting the burden of proof exactly?
You have made some assertions about the Oral Torah. You were challenged to come up the answers. You didn't. Instead you choose to keep attacking. The answer to the question you just asked, by your own stolen words, is you.

Dannyil Wrote:

Have . . . Septuagint?
No. What, you think we are all your groupies or something?

I . . . Christian.
Believe or not, most Christians find titles like rabbi or reverend or his holiness to be all of the same cloth. I would never go to a church that had a "reverend." And if he's so well-respected, how come nobody quotes from him? How come he's so hard to find on the Internet?

Other . . . CE.
This is not what "respected" modern scholarship says of the Septuagint. The Septuagint originated with the Jews. Did Christian Monks precede the Dead Sea Scrolls? Its funny: you told me Jews were such great historians. But Search thinks Yeshua quoted from future rabbis and you think monks went back in time to edit the Septuagint. Perhaps your time travel addition to my analogy was not meant to be satire.

You're . . . Publishers.
Actually, I've been more influenced by others, Yamauchi, for one, who are much more modern.

It . . . sources.
And on page 43 there's 3D glasses, too. And? I'm not enamored of scholars. I've studied under them. I know they have biases that affect their results. I'm not about to spend money on a book that may turn out to be more malarkey.

I . . . anything.
Actually, modern scholars use it to prove that the majority of the Masoretic text is the original. Throw out the Septuagint, and you have the same problems with the OT that you have with the Oral Law: no way to prove its historical authenticity.

It is inaccurate, and makes blatant mistakes.
Yes, no text is perfect. But where it disagrees with the Masoretic, those disagreements are echoed in documents that have a separate stream of transmission. You are giving us a nothing argument. Funny, the Septuagint was good enough for Jews before Christians started using it.

The . . . amiss.
Who said the Septuagint was part of the Oral Torah? What did you say to Sugarman, something like, don't put words in my mouth?

I . . . relevant.
You still haven't proved that the traditions haven't changed over time. Saying something over and over again only takes you back home from Oz.

The . . . explanation).
You mean when God sent them all to Babylon for getting His message to them wrong? (Note to rabbinical self: in the future, lean not on my own ways, but trust the prophet standing in front of me instead of the Oral Torah--possibly this error will lead to a Diaspora some years future.)

Dannyil Wrote:

Part I.

1. Actually, this is a misnomer.  The telephone game is probably the worst example to compare any passing of oral information.

a.)  The Telephone game is done is a whisper format, when people are drunk and having a good time.
Yes, tell that to all the little children when they're sober.

The material is usually nonsensical, and there is little incentive to keep the message correct, the opposite, it is encouraged that the message is wrong.
Little incentive? You mean, when your religious documents seem to support the Christian argument that Yeshua was the Messiah?

Passing down Oral information in Judaism is not at all like the telephone game.  It is done orally, like Telephone

and the same information is repeated over and over like Telephone

until they get it right.
Who's to say? Based on what empirical evidence?

Those entrusted with passing down the information were allowed to keep private notebooks, recording notes and information.
The Not-So-Oral Torah. Where are these notes so they be can dated and compared to the Mishnah?

The material is logical, and people gained prestige, honor and wealth by maintaining the message.
How do we know they maintained the message? You yourself said that the Oral Torah contains info not in the Written Torah.

  Not only that, people were living the Torah, if they got something wrong, it would cost them time and money.
Negative. You said that you can't understand the Torah without the Oral Torah. Therefore, nobody can live the Torah. What you live is the Oral Torah. BTW, I've been reading through the Mishnah. It's not so authoritative, is it? Seems to be a lot of "interpretation" of the "interpretation."

2. It has been shown that Oral traditions in other cultures are also very reliable.  The entire list of Zulu Kings is given by Oral tradition, records made by Sailors have verified that it is 100% accurate.
A list of kings and family members is much different than a 1137 page book (the version I have).

Scholars are acutely aware of Oral traditions, and have largely accepted them as valid historical accounts, and eye-witnesses testimony of events.
Scholars, in lieu of other evidence, use the Oral Torah to confirm historical details. I'm not completely against your argument. But I've not seen any scholars who give it a free pass. Just as you won't accept the Septuagint, though it closely resembles the Masoretic, I won't accept the Oral Torah, though it has some things in it that I can agree to. What's the saying? A little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Dannyil Wrote:

1. . . . not.
No, that's true. You still have Christians who understand it and take it seriously.

2. It . . . knot.
As I said in another post, quoting rabbi Paul, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump."

That is not my argument.
So then where's your proof that the Oral Torah descended to us without flaw?

My argument is that, given that the Oral Torah is *not* inspired, then I would expect that the Torah is completely perfect and comprehensible.  That means every single word and instruction is spelled out in every detail so that I can perform what G-d says.

I see that the Torah is not comprehensible, since G-d is perfect in His wisdom, and He wants me to do what the Torah says, then I would expect Him to provide the necessary means to understand the Torah.
I agree. Its' called the Holy Spirit. Ruach Hakodesh.

The Oral Torah is the only mechanism out there, that tells me what the words mean, and how to accomplish G-d's word.
Man-made mechanism. We all know what happens with man-made stuff. Oh you of little faith.

[The Septuagint, Samaritan, or Peshitta translations, are all much later.  The Oral Torah had to be given at Sinai, since there is no way the Written Torah can be comprehended without it.]
Funny, the Karaites don't believe that. But that's right: they're practically gentiles because they don't agree with the rabbis. "The Oral Torah is because the Oral Torah says, and if you don't like it you can't be one of us."

That is my argument.
And it really stinks. I wouldn't have admitted to it.

Dannyil Wrote:

This is simply born out of ignorance of the facts.  Abraham, knew the Torah, this is evidenced from the Torah itself, where Abraham prepares for Passover.
Abraham prepares for Passover? Okay, I bite. What are you talking about? You mean, the killing of Isaac? No wonder Elijah never shows up!

But getting back to the argument. One Torah, One Oral Torah? When did God give the Torah and the Oral Torah? At Sinai? Then He didn't give it to Abraham. How do we know? Abraham didn't build a tabernacle. Therefore, if Abe had Torah and Oral Torah, he didn't have the same ones. Two Torahs, two Oral Torahs, according to your argument.

In addition, the Torah is understood to be the blueprint of the world.
I have no clue what you mean by this.

The . . . Torah.
That's about what I would expect of your argument. The Torah is inferior; it's really the Oral Torah that gives its life. Except that it is not the object that makes the Chameleon change its color. If I sat on a leave, I don't turn green. The same DNA that is in a chameleon is also present in all life: the organization of the DNA is different, but the building blocks are the same. If you are saying that rabbis should turn color because of the Oral Torah, I agree. They should turn red with embarrassment.

You assume that the Oral Tradition has to exist when the Torah was given.  Tell me, who gave the Oral Torah?  G-d!
Where in the Torah does He say He does that? I see all sorts of other statements by God of what He creates, but I don't see one about the "other" Torah. BTW, I agree God gave commands, statues, and ordinances that are not recorded in the Torah. However, I disagree that they are in the Oral Torah. Prove that they are? You haven't, and you can't.

Can G-d tell Abraham what to do? YES, can G-d tell Abraham the Oral Torah? YES!
Did God? No! How do we know? Because the Mishnah is not authoritative in its presentation of the commands. God speaks authoritatively.

Is a black suit part of the Oral Tradition?  Is it written anywhere in the Torah or Oral Torah the type of dress that is necessary to be Jewish? NO!
that means there can be wide variance.
But heaven forbid you don't tie the first knot right! Or that you don't use the right citrus fruit. What did Yeshua say, strain a gnat and swallow a camel?

I'll . . ..

Strange no?  Its clear from the above example, that the Oral Tradition, is reliable.
What I find strange is that a group of people will put more focus on a fruit than on the meaning of an event.

Dannyil Wrote:

If you reject the Rabbis, then it is impossible to read the text of the Tanakh.
Why? Because it is those same Rabbis who tell you where to punctuate and how to read the Tanakh.

Danny forgot to tell us that the Rabbi's are not in agreement about the punctuations!

Some punctuations should be left out to give room for the Holy Spirit... for such a time as this! Selah

The Bible is written in such a way that the field and condition of our heart is most important before study. Get this right and the L-rd will direct your path !

or you can follow blindly with blinkers provided by Danny... u choose

anonymous Wrote:

✡ Listen and learn from all ✡ but think for yourself ! ✡

Mat 15:13-14 Jesus replied, "Every plant not planted by my heavenly Father will be rooted up, (14) so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch."

Mar 4:11-12 Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: (12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Prowler Wrote:

Danny forgot to tell us that the Rabbi's are not in agreement about the punctuations!

and Danny forgot to mention everything else in Judaism, on one foot.

1. Prove that the Rabbis are not in agreement about the punctuations
2. This is irrelevant to my position. No-one is in disagreement about what each word in the Tanakh is, and how it is to be pronounced. That is a Masora.

Danny.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6