On reading the Torah literally

[cnorman19]

Some insist that the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call "The Old Testament"), and particularly that most central and ancient part of it called the Torah, the five Books of Moses which contain the foundation of all the rest -- is self-evidently intended to be read literally, as a message given directly by God to humans which is not to be questioned or "interpreted" in any way. But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it -- and as it happens, that approach has never been taken by anyone other than Christians of relatively modern times. Indeed, those who wrote or edited the final version of the Torah themselves never intended it to be so used.

The reason for that fact, and the proof of it, is simple and clear: There was never only a written Torah. There were always two; a written Torah and an oral Torah, each dependent upon and coexisting with the other.

(The following is from The Jewish Virtual Library, one of the few really reliable sources online for information on Jewish history and teachings. Some emphases have been added in boldface)

ORAL LAW (Heb. " -"), the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law (*Torah, which is the text of the *Pentateuch) which was regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral Laws constitute together "two that are one." "It is related that a certain man stood before Shammai and said 'Rabbi, How many Torahs have you?' The rabbi replied 'Two " one written and one oral'" (ARN1 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351). There is a strong and close bond between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other " both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality. The Oral Law depends upon the Written Law, but at the same time, say the rabbis, it is clear that there can be no real existence for the Written Law without the Oral. The need for the positing of the existence of the Oral Law is inherent in the very character and nature of the Torah. The statutes of the Written Law could not have been fulfilled literally even in the generation in which they were given, since "that which is plain in the Torah is obscure, all the more that which is obscure" (Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3, 35; cf. Moses of Coucy in Semag, introduction: "For the verses contradict and refute each other," and "the statements in the Written Law are vague"). Even those statutes of the Torah that appear to be clearly formulated and detailed contain more that is obscure and requires explanation than what is manifest and understandable. The reasons given for this are many and various. The Written Law contains contradictions (cf., e.g., Deut. 16:3"4 with 16:8), and there is a lack of clarity and definition: The law "he shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:12 et al.) does not state whether by stoning, burning, or some other method not mentioned in the Torah. "And ye shall afflict your souls" (Lev. 16:31) does not indicate whether it means by mortification of the body through ascetic practices, by fasting, or in some other manner. The prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath does not specify the nature of work (see below). "And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow But if any harm follow" (Ex. 21:22"23) does not make it clear whether the "harm" refers to the woman or her embryo. Dimensions and quantities are not given, e.g., in the precepts of leket, *shikhah, and *pe'ah, or *terumah (the priestly portion), etc. Individual laws are given without any indication of whether the law is confined to that particular case or whether it is to be regarded merely as an example of a category of laws, e.g., the law that a slave goes free if his master destroys his eye or his tooth (Ex. 21:26"27).

There are lacunae, and laws which are not explicitly stated but to which mere passing reference is made (thus the only reference to the laws of sale and acquisition is the prohibition against overreaching " *ona'ah); there is no reference to the laws of marriage, while the law of divorce is mentioned only incidentally in connection with the injunction that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has remarried and become divorced again (Deut. 24:1"4); the Torah enjoins that one sentenced to be flogged may not have more than the fixed number of lashes inflicted (Deut. 25:1"3), but nowhere does it specify which transgressions involve the punishment of a flogging. From the above it seems clear that it was impossible for life to be regulated solely in accordance with the Written Law ("and I should like someone to adjudicate between two litigants on the basis of the weekly portions, Mishpatim [Ex. 21"24] and Ki Te"e [Deut. 21:10"25:19]" " Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3:35). It may even be inferred from the Written Law itself that immediately after it was given there already was difficulty in understanding it. Thus, e.g., it is apparent that until he heard it explicity from God, Moses did not know what the penalty was for the transgression of gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32"35; cf. Sif. Zut. 15:34: "Eliezar b. Simeon says: Moses did not know that he was liable to death, nor did he know how he should be executed, as can be inferred from the reply given: 'And the Lord said unto Moses: the man shall be put to death,' i.e., he is liable to death; how shall he put to death? He [God] replied: by stoning"; cf. also the case of the blasphemer in Lev. 24:10"23). As stated above, there is no definition in the Pentateuch of what constitutes work in connection with the Sabbath (or the Day of Atonement), only some of the things forbidden being explicitly mentioned (plowing, reaping, kindling fire). Furthermore, in connection with the desecration of the Sabbath, in one and the same verse (Ex. 31:14) two different punishments " death and *karet " are given. From the point of view of its judicial literary form, the Written Law is in fact no different from other early Oriental statutes which never exhausted or aimed at exhausting all the details of the laws given.

If, therefore, the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which it was given, how much less could it be understood by later generations? In addition to this consideration, it was a fundamental doctrine of the rabbis that the Torah was given by God for all time, that it would never be exchanged for another Torah and certainly never rescinded, and that it provided for all possible circumstances which might arise at any time in the future. Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions " social, economic, etc. " raised many new problems, as well as the question of their solution in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored. In fact, from the beginning the Written Law was the basis of authority of the Oral Law for the future (Deut. 17:8"11 and see below). It can thus be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law existed not merely from the moment the Written Law was given (and in this sense it is correct to say that the Written and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Sinai), but it may even be maintained that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Written Law not only assumes the observance of the Oral Law in the future but is in effect based on its previous existence. Since the written law relies " by allusion or by its silence " on statutes, customs, and basic laws not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, business; see above), these statutes are ipso facto converted into a part of the Oral Law.

The impossibility of the Written Law existing without an Oral Law can also be demonstrated from Jewish history. The development of the Oral Law can be traced throughout the books of the Bible, especially in the prophets and the hagiographa, in the Jewish literature of the time of the Second Temple (Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, in Jewish Hellenistic *literature, and in the early Targums of the Bible), the talmudic literature and the rabbinical literature throughout the generations (see *Halakhah). Even the dissenting sects outside normative Judaism, as long as they did not abandon Judaism completely, did not maintain the Written Law without an Oral Law: the *Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees " who were to be stoned, who burnt, who beheaded, and who strangled" (the scholium to Megillat *Ta'anit); the Judean desert sect developed, especially by means of biblical exegesis, a most ramified halakhah which has survived in its works (in particular in the Damascus Covenant, the Manual of Discipline and other works; see Dead Sea *Scrolls); and a most ramified halakhah also developed among the *Karaites. In the relationship of the Written to the Oral Law there exists a kind of paradox, both interesting and characteristic. From the dogmatic point of view the Oral Law has its basis in, and derives its validity from, explicit verses in the Written Law, but at the same time the Written Law itself obtains its full validity and its authority for practical halakhah from the Oral Law. The Written Law in fact establishes the authority of the Oral Law by laying down that "if there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left" (Deut. 17:8"11). Yet it follows precisely from those very verses themselves that it is the Oral Law itself which determines what the halakhah of the Written Law is in practice, including the true meanings (as distinct from the theoretical philological meanings) of those very verses (Deut. 17:8"11) themselves.

Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law " "from Heaven," at Sinai, but in the language of men and to men " it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars of the Oral Law, who accept the "yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" but give halakhic ruling according to their understanding ("henceforth no prophet can innovate anything" " Sifra, Be-ukkotai, 13:7; cf. Shab. 104a), since "it is not in Heaven" (TJ, MK 3:1, 81d; BM 59b " based upon Deut. 30:12). Though indeed this rule was not accepted without protest, yet those who objected belonged to the fringes of Judaism, and it was not they who determined the halakhah. The Oral Law is able to circumvent the Written Law (see TJ, Kid. 1:2, 59d). In consequence of this provision, Maimonides, following the talmudic sages, ruled that "in an emergency any bet din may cancel even the words of the (written) Torah in order to strengthen religion and to prevent people from transgressing the Torah. They may order flagellation and punish for breach of law, but such a ruling may not be effected permanently. Similarly, if they see a temporary need to set aside a positive precept, or to transgress an injunction in order to bring many back to religion, or in order to save many Israelites from grief in other matters, they may act in accordance with the needs of the time; just as the physician amputates a hand or a leg in order to preserve the life, so the bet din may rule at some particular time that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be preserved" (Yad, Mamrim 2:4). Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is the major and the main part (i.e., both in quantity and quality) of the Torah. "The Holy One made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that transmitted orally" (Git. 60b; cf. TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a: those given orally are beloved"). The Oral Law, which is well-nigh sovereign in relation to the Written Law, is the "mystery" () of the Holy One (Tan. Ki Tissa 34, et al.; though the sources speak of the *Mishnah, it is certain that the whole oral law is intended) because of the essential nature of its being given orally. It is this nature of the Oral Law " that it was given orally " that determines its vitality and organic development; it is not immutable and fossilized but alive and evolving. This vitality, however, could only be preserved in words not fixed in writing and in a binding and unchangeable form but in words developing continually and unceasingly. As mentioned, the Sadducees had a book of decrees in writing which was their "Oral Law" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.), and therefore according to their outlook the whole of the Torah too was "prepared in writing" (Kid. 66a " according to early printed versions and Haggadot ha-Talmud, Constantinople, 1511, 56d), i.e., the written word obligates. The Pharisees, however, claimed that the distinguishing feature and authority of the Oral Law is embedded in the fundamental rule (Deut. 31:19), "put it in their mouths" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.). The Oral Law was handed over to the sages, by means of whose words it is fixed and evolves from generation to generation. It is this nature and this sovereignty that are the real will of the Written Law, which was given on the basis that it be explained by means of the Oral Law. This, apparently, is the reason that although there is a disciple who expounds "more than was spoken to Moses at Sinai" (ARN2 13, 32), yet "even what a distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher was already conveyed to Moses at Sinai" (TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a; cf. Meg. 19b and SEZ 2:171 "Surely both the Bible and Mishnah were communicated by the Almighty"). The meaning of all these and of similar sources is that from the point of view of its functional essence, the whole of the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai, since "the Torah itself gave the sages a mind to interpret and to declare" (Sif. Num. 134; cf. "matters not revealed to Moses were revealed to Akiva" " (Tan. B. Num. 117; for its true meaning cf. Men. 29b " the aggadah of Moses entering the yeshivah of *Akiva " "and he did not know what they were saying," not even a detail of a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai). Even the Holy One repeats, as it were, a halakhah as spoken by the sages (PdRK, ed. by D. Mandelbaum (1962), 73, et al.).

There is much more at the site concerning the attitudes and approaches of the other two major movements in Judaism, Reform and Conservative; but the above is an excellent explanation of the Orthodox approach, which should put an end to discussions about the "literal" or "verbatim" reading of the Torah, unassisted by any "interpretation." Such a thing is clearly rendered impossible by the nature of the text itself; and indeed, Jewish tradition and teaching -- from the time of the giving of the Torah, never mind the later editing and redaction of the text into its final form -- has never, as in not ever, held that such a reading is even possible.

[Divine Insight]

(Like, for instance, the twelve (12) points in an earlier post of mine that you "didn't have time" to address.... And won't, no doubt. Not ever.)

I have no clue which 12 points you are referring to.

If you would kindly enumerate them in a list I'll gladly address each and every one of them.

Riiiight. Like you didn't notice this in my post #11 on this very thread --

"There were twelve (12) issues presented here. Please show where you have "addressed" any of these, as opposed to merely ducking them and repeating your own unsupported opinions without either argument or sources."

I addressed those "points" that you were trying to make about me in POST #18.

I didn't bother going through all twelve of them because they were getting too repetitive.

And besides these aren't points being made about Judaism. Those were totally absurd and untrue accusations that you were making about me on a personal level.

Do you have points to make about the actual topic at hand?

I couldn't care less about your absurd opinions about me, or what you imagine my motivation, education, or experience to be. Those are all nothing more than your own fabrications about another forum member. It's not even appropriate debate material.

We're not here to argue over who we think has the better "credentials" or what people's motivations might be, or what we imagine them to have as an agenda.

In fact, when you focus on those things it's a clear sign that you have already realized that you can't address the actual topic issues.

For example in you "point #12" you say:

You pretend that your verbatim, mechanical surface reading of the Bible is the only acceptable way to approach it, and that any other approach is camouflage for simply REJECTING the Bible and God.

Really? (Eleven) Study of the Scriptural documents in anything like a scholarly manner is unacceptable? Considering their sources in the documents of earlier civilizations and tribes? Considering the way they were edited and combined into the form we have today, and the context and relationships of the various narratives and directives within the text itself? Actually trying to make sense of the innumerable contradictions and alternate versions contained within the Bible itself (e.g., two Creation stories; three differing versions of the Ten Commandments, as noted above; narrative passages by different hands obviously interpolated into other passages, which are themselves interpolations into the greater body of text; and so on)? Actually trying to UNDERSTAND how this text was FORMED?

This is absolute garbage. Nowhere have I ever suggested that people can't study these ancient scriptures. Or that a scholarly study of them is unacceptable. On the contrary there are MANY scholars who have studied these things and have concluded that they are nothing more than the writings of an ancient superstitious culture.

What I am saying is that there is NO RATIONAL REASON to try to make anything more of it than this obvious conclusion.

You shouldn't need to be an Albert Einstein to recognize that these ancient fables have no merit in what their "literally" claim.

In fact, you seem to even AGREE with this. Even you proclaim that they make no sense literally and you have even posted in the OP that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true literally.

So you should be done right there.

Trying to then move into a situation where you are trying to imagine non-literal ideals from these ancient writings that you have already recognized cannot have any literal meaning seems utterly absurd to me.

~~~~~

Moreover, my argument on that POINT #12, is that if you even could move forward to laying claim to having gotten something out of these writings in some non-literal way, then whatever it is that you "got" clearly did not come from these writings anyway. Instead they were entire fabrications of your own imagination. (no doubt along the same line that you imagine and fabricate all the derogatory claims you make about me).

Apparently you view this as some sort of "intellectual warfare" where I represent the "enemy" who opposes "your side". But I'm not a even a solider in that war. In fact, I don't even approve of those kinds of "intellectual war games".

I simply point out the rational truth. It doesn't matter to me whether we're talking about Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or even Buddhism. When a theology makes absurd claims, they need to be challenged. And IMHO, it's utterly absurd to claim that literally rejecting the Bible makes sense whilst attempting to cling to some sort of "non-literal interpretations".

Can you make "non-literal interpretations" that seem to make SENSE to you?

Of course you can!

But you can do that with ANY fairytale.

It's not a viable argument that the fairytale itself should be taken seriously by anyone else.

~~~~~

In short Charles, I don't see where I need to be "educated" on what Jews believe or how they think. I think that's pretty clear.

I simply disagree that their manner of thinking makes any sense. That's all.

Apparently all they are doing as a social group is condoning and supporting the idea that their own cultural fairytales are "worth" considering as serious fodder for moral or religious thoughts.

And I simply disagree with that mindset. Period.

So it's not that I don't "understand" Jews or Judaism. It's just that I see no value in it.

[cnorman19]

Okay. I surrender. You have been successful; you have effectively blocked and stamped out any meaningful discussion of the teachings or traditions of the Jewish religion -- and you have done it by simply misrepresenting, and then shouting down, everything I have to say.

This wasn't a debate OR a discussion. It was an exercise in oversimplification, distortion, and caricature; and there appears to be no remedy for those tactics on this forum.

Too bad.

[Divine Insight]

Okay. I surrender. You have been successful; you have effectively blocked and stamped out any meaningful discussion of the teachings or traditions of the Jewish religion -- and you have done it by simply misrepresenting, and then shouting down, everything I have to say.

This wasn't a debate OR a discussion. It was an exercise in oversimplification, distortion, and caricature; and there appears to be no remedy for those tactics on this forum.

Too bad.

What exactly is it that you are hoping for Charles?

I agree our "discussion" could have been more pleasant. However, does it really matter how polite it is? The end result is going to be the same in any case.

No matter how politely the conversation goes the issues remain the same.

As far as I can see here are the main issues:

1. The actual texts (or scriptures) in question clearly proclaim to be making demands, commandments and directives in the name of a God.

2. Those commandments and directives have serious "literal problems". (I think the fact that many theists of these religions have a desperate need to divorce themselves from what these scriptures literally have to say is pretty convincing evidence that even the theists recognize that they can't be taken literally)

3. Finally, and this is my major concern, if these scriptures that claim to be the specific moral directives and commandments of a judgmental God can't be taken literally, then exactly how are we supposed to know precisely what this judgmental God expects from us or wants from us?

It seems to me that no matter how politely this conversation goes, these issues are not going to be resolved in any unambiguous way.

In fact, I suggest that the "Proof" of this is in these very religions themselves. We can talk about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as though they are three entirely different distinct and separate religions. But this doesn't change the fact that they are indeed nothing more than three major interpretations of ancient claims. And all three of these major factions have extreme diversity and disagreement within them.

It would seem to me Charles that even if we embrace the Jewish paradigm that this religion is best "understood" via abstract non-literal interpretations, then we would have no choice but to recognize Christianity and Islam as being "Perfectly Legitimate Factions of Judaism". Because after all, those religions are nothing more than a different "interpretation" of the same underlying scriptures.

I would like to be as polite in conversation as possible. But the bottom line is that I don't see how any of this can be supported as being rational.

If there exists a creator of humanity who wanted to communicate with us on how to best to behave ourselves, and he used these ancient Jewish stories for that purpose. All I can say is that we must have been created by a seriously inept God. Because this religion has been anything but clear.

You may think that you can somehow separate "Judaism" out of the bunch as somehow having special merit or something, but I think that would be an extremely difficult argument to support.

I just don't see where any of these Abrahamic religions warrant serious consideration in terms of having anything to do with any supposed "God" or Supernatural Creator trying to communicate with mankind.

And without that kind of authority behind these "scriptures" why should anyone care much what these scriptures have to say unless they are simply interested in understanding the superstitious beliefs of ancient cultures?

If I were speaking this post to you in person I would present it as politely as I possibly can. The only reason you "perceive" this to be anything less than "polite" or "civil" is simply because you don't like what I have to say.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

All of which boils down to, as I've said over and over and as you refuse to acknowledge, the same old false dichotomy that's been the favorite hobbyhorse of Christian fundamentalists and militant atheists alike around here for the better part of a decade:

"Either read the Bible literally, or discard it as useless garbage and meaningless fairy tale." No other options, as far as "religion" or "religious thought" is concerned; two ways only, no other understanding or approach permissible.

Which false dichotomy, in your case, actually depends on a very old logical fallacy: it's a classic example of "begging the question," i.e. presenting one's conclusion as a premise of one's argument.

"One must read the Bible literally and obey its commands."

"Why?"

"Because the Bible commands that it be read that way."

So; the Bible must be read literally because the Bible says it is to be so read. One must assume the correctness of a literal reading in order to prove that a literal reading is correct....

The bottom line of your "main issues" is therefore a false dichotomy based on a basic logical fallacy.

Now, to camouflage that FACT, you have also thrown out an impressive number of red herrings: pretending that the issues here include, e.g., (1) my becoming emotionally upset -- an OLD tactic around here; (2) pretending that I've been complaining about your not being "polite," which has never happened (though I have noted that you repeatedly imply -- oh, quite politely -- that I'm not smart enough to understand the truth of my own religion); (3) smearing and mindreading legitimate scholarly study as -- direct quote here -- "a desperate need to divorce themselves from what these scriptures literally have to say"; (4) pretending that I have complained about your "personal objection to Judaism," which has also never happened; (5) that I myself have presented Judaism as somehow uniquely true or superior to other beliefs; and (6), perhaps looniest of all, pretending that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are -- direct quote again -- "nothing more than three major interpretations of ancient claims" and "nothing more than a different "interpretation" of the same underlying scriptures" -- which, of course, ignores and dismisses the very existence of the New Testament, the Qu'ran, and the Talmud. "Nothing more than," indeed.

What utter nonsense. All of it. Your "debate" here is nothing more than (a) made-up arguments that you attribute to me, and (b) your own bizarre formulations, which are found nowhere else but in your head, of the content of and motivations behind major Western religions.

All this thrown out in a series of "DESPERATE" -- favorite word of your own -- attempts to distract from the FACT that you've never, in spite of your claims, addressed the central issues here: those of your FALSE DICHOTOMY, and of the LOGICAL FALLACY it's based on. Those, as well as the FACT that you have continuously mischaracterized, misstated and caricatured everything I have to say without even an attempt to actually address any part of it, other than by reflexively repeating your false dichotomy and its attendant question-begging in various forms.

Like I said; there's no debate here. Just a lot of posing and posturing and preaching, no logic or actual scholarship allowed. I predict that you will continue to ride your illogical false dichotomy and ignore all references to it, just as you have thus far, and that you will continue to throw out your multiple red herrings as attempts at distraction.

Keep trying. I don't think you're fooling anyone here, other than those who long to be fooled by your empty, logic- and scholarship-free rhetoric.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

All of which boils down to, as I've said over and over and as you refuse to acknowledge, the same old false dichotomy that's been the favorite hobbyhorse of Christian fundamentalists and militant atheists alike around here for the better part of a decade:

"Either read the Bible literally, or discard it as useless garbage and meaningless fairy tale." No other options, as far as "religion" or "religious thought" is concerned; two ways only, no other understanding or approach permissible.

Which false dichotomy, in your case, actually depends on a very old logical fallacy: it's a classic example of "begging the question," i.e. presenting one's conclusion as a premise of one's argument.

"One must read the Bible literally and obey its commands."

"Why?"

"Because the Bible commands that it be read that way."

So; the Bible must be read literally because the Bible says it is to be so read. One must assume the correctness of a literal reading in order to prove that a literal reading is correct....

The bottom line of your "main issues" is therefore a false dichotomy based on a basic logical fallacy.

That's your false dichotomy not mine.

I'm not saying that the bible must be read literally because the Bible says it is to be read literally.

I'm saying that if there actually exists a supreme being who demands that we must obey his commandments and directives he should be able to make those commandments and directives crystal clear without any need for any "non-literal interpretations" by mere mortal men.

In fact, what does "non-literal interpretations" even mean?

All it can mean is that someone doesn't like what something literally says so they pretend that it actually meant something different. Something it DIDN'T SAY.

Any theological argument that claims that a theology could somehow be kept afloat by literally rejecting the scriptures and pretending that they could have been written differently is an extremely weak theology.

It's a theology that has itself already realized that its very own foundational scriptures have no "literal value".

Like I said; there's no debate here. Just a lot of posing and posturing and preaching, no logic or actual scholarship allowed. I predict that you will continue to ride your illogical false dichotomy and ignore all references to it, just as you have thus far, and that you will continue to throw out your multiple red herrings as attempts at distraction.

Keep trying. I don't think you're fooling anyone here, other than those who long to be fooled by your empty, logic- and scholarship-free rhetoric.

Are you even capable of debate at all?

It seems to me that as soon as anyone challenges your position on things you dismiss them. They are either going to accept your non-literal theology or you are just going to dismiss them by using all these negative and false accusations that you continually make about me.

The bottom line for me is very simple.

Either these ancient scriptures came from our creator God as they claim, or they didn't.

I simply hold that if they did come from an omnipotent omniscient all-wise perfect creator, then they should reflect those traits and not need to be "non-literally interpreted" by a bunch of disagreeing humans.

On the other hand, if they didn't come from an omnipotent omniscient all-wise perfect creator then why should I consider these scriptures to be anymore valuable than Alice in Wonderland, or whatever.

To me that is the REAL DICHOTOMY here. Either the Bible came from God or it didn't. Period.

And if it came from a God, it should say what it means and means what it says.

Just answer me the following question please:

If there exists a God who demands that we obey HIS COMMANDMENTS and HIS DIRECTIVES, then how are we supposed to know what his commandments and his directives are if you claim that we can't TRUST the Bible to be literally correct?

Who's "non-literal interpretations" should I go by?

Yours? My own? Someone else's?

And why couldn't this God have just made things clear the first time around by simply inspiring people to write things that are indeed literally correct and true?

Why should I need to argue with a whole bunch of disagreeing theologians in an effort to try to figure out what some supposedly angry God demands from me lest he'll cast me into a hell-fire or whatever.

The God that the Jews propose is a God that I can't TRUST to even be able to communicate effectively. It would be an untrustworthy God to be sure.

[cnorman19]

That's your false dichotomy not mine.

I'm not saying that the bible must be read literally because the Bible says it is to be read literally.

Really? Here's a direct, VERBATIM quote from you on the thread in General Chat:

The ancient scriptures clearly claim that some "God" is handing down specific laws, directives, and commandments, etc. To be honest I can't understand Jews who deny this apparent fact. I think the scriptures are pretty clear in proclaiming that the LORD thy GOD expects people do to this, that, and the other thing, etc.

And here's another exchange from that same thread:

The central thesis of your position is simple enough: (One) You demand that I understand and believe in the Bible in a certain way, and if I dont, then my religion is " your words here " nothing more than extreme "denial" disguised as abstract ambiguity and pretending. Put another way: You have insisted, and repeatedly, that if I dont believe in the Bible in the Divinely given, supernaturally-received way which YOU DEMAND I that accept, that I must not actually believe in God at all and my religion is ipso facto mere faking and hypocrisy.

I agree that you understand my position.

Seems clear enough. And that's not all; immediately after that, you go on to say:

However, I totally disagree with you that these are "MY DEMANDS". On the contrary, the literal Bible is what makes these demands.... My position is that this is what the original authors of the scriptures themselves demand.

That looks like an unambiguous declaration that "the bible must be read literally because the Bible says it is to be read literally" -- just as I said.

...I'm saying that if there actually exists a supreme being who demands that we must obey his commandments and directives he should be able to make those commandments and directives crystal clear without any need for any "non-literal interpretations" by mere mortal men.

Right. So NOW it's not about the Bible, but about God. Funny how you spent all that time talking about reading the Bible literally and "verbatim," then, if that's your argument....

In fact, what does "non-literal interpretations" even mean?

All it can mean is that someone doesn't like what something literally says so they pretend that it actually meant something different. Something it DIDN'T SAY.....literally rejecting the scriptures and pretending that they could have been written differently...

Which no one here but you has ever said. As I explained in my last (and which you keep confirming), "Your "debate" here is nothing more than made-up arguments that you attribute to me and your own bizarre formulations, which are found nowhere else but in your head."

Here's the proof, one more time, all together now: Interpreting the Scriptures is not the same as REJECTING the Scriptures. That's pretty elementary. If you try to "interpret" the works of James Joyce, or Einstein, or Pliny the Elder, you are hardly "REJECTING" them. That's arrant nonsense, and OBVIOUS arrant nonsense.

Maybe it's time you stopped trying to peddle it here.

...It seems to me that as soon as anyone challenges your position on things you dismiss them...

No, that would be you.

...Either these ancient scriptures came from our creator God as they claim, or they didn't....

So now we're back to the Bible again, and of course your false dichotomy.

I simply hold that if they did come from an omnipotent omniscient all-wise perfect creator...

Which, again, no one but you ever said. Even the BIBLE ITSELF doesn't make those claims. Nor does Jewish tradition, back to the very beginning. Ever notice that Abraham himself argued with God -- to His face? Held him to a standard of morality higher than God Himself? There are PLENTY of other examples of God being directly corrected by humans in the Torah.

Which you'd know if you'd ever actually STUDIED it, as opposed to merely READING it, unassisted, with all your stereotypes, misconceptions and assumptions about "religion" in place -- all the while seeking out your cherry-picked passages that dismiss and ignore all the good and moral and wise teachings in the Bible, as if there's nothing in there but evil and horror.

On the other hand, if they didn't come from an omnipotent omniscient all-wise perfect creator...

Which no one has ever taught...

...then why should I consider these scriptures to be anymore valuable than Alice in Wonderland, or whatever.

As if only literature that comes direct from the Hand of a perfect God -- which, again, NO ONE has ever said -- has any value at all?

Really?

And, of course, there you have indisputably displayed your false dichotomy, as plain as day. "Read it literally or throw it away." Q.E.D.

To me that is the REAL DICHOTOMY here. Either the Bible came from God or it didn't. Period.

And that is precisely the FALSE DICHOTOMY that I've been talking about all along. You DENY it-- and here you openly STATE it, and more than once, and with the corollary I stated firmly in place! "Literally true or garbage."

There it is, in the same terms that I stated earlier. Let's look at your own words again:

if [the Scriptures] didn't come from an omnipotent omniscient all-wise perfect creator then why should I consider these scriptures to be anymore valuable than Alice in Wonderland, or whatever.

If that's not a straight-up dichotomy, (look it up), I don't know what one would look like.

Once again; you are arguing that the ONLY way to read the Bible is in a way that NO ONE has ever advocated or done -- and which you don't do either!

....And why couldn't this God have just made things clear the first time around by simply inspiring people to write things that are indeed literally correct and true?

You DID ask -- so here's why, from the OP:

"Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions " social, economic, etc. " raised many new problems, as well as the question of their solution in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored."

Not that that will cut any ice with you; your apparent expectation is that the Bible should have been simple, easy to understand in every language and in every age and by every culture throughout time, cover EVERYTHING, and NEVER, EVER need updating. The Bible should have contained information on firearms, brain surgery, germ theory, relativity, proper Internet ethics, quantum mechanics, and every other topic -- so that we humans would never, ever have to use our brains again, right?

Right?

Who has EVER taught that?

No one. As the OP pointed out, the Torah itself demands interpretation:

"If there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left" (Deut. 17:8"11).

That is about a tradition of human interpretation that is neither arbitrary, nor personal on the part of any person, nor unrelated to the Written Law, nor a "rejection" of it -- all of which you keep trying to sell as the meaning of "intepretation."

What a phony argument. What an obvious load.

Why should I need to argue with a whole bunch of disagreeing theologians in an effort to try to figure out what some supposedly angry God demands from me lest he'll cast me into a hell-fire or whatever.

If you actually look at real-life religious traditions, within each there is very little disagreement. You're trying to pretend (again) that without a strictly literal, "verbatim" reading, all is chaos and meaningless anarchy. That is not, and never has been, the case with the Jewish tradition -- and, though to a lesser degree, within the Christian tradition as well. On most matters there is general agreement within each communion; and where there is not, there is always a non-arbitrary method or procedure for the revision and amending of the teaching, which is of course inevitable, given that we no longer live in the Bronze Age.

Oh, yes; and the Torah has nothing to say about Hell-fire at all, nor about any kind of punishment of "sin" for individuals, nor about any Afterlife. Those are all Christian inventions.

Are you sure you've actually READ the Bible?

[Divine Insight]

Oh, yes; and the Torah has nothing to say about Hell-fire at all, nor about any kind of punishment of "sin" for individuals, nor about any Afterlife. Those are all Christian inventions.

I was waiting for this lame claim. And I new it would be forthcoming as well.

If what you say here is true then there is no reason for me to even care about Judaism at all.

According to you, there is no hell-fire, and no punishment of "sin" for individuals. So clearly it doesn't then matter what I do anyway.

According to you there is no Afterlife. So your religion has nothing to offer anyway.

What's the point to a religion that requires nothing, offers nothing, and can't be taken literally?

~~~~~

All I can say is that if your goal was to educate me on what Jews actually believe, I think you did a fine job.

I see no value in their "religion". As far as I can see their religion has no literal value, and apparently they aren't even sure if has to do with any God anyway.

As far as I can see the Jews have the most wishy-washy religion on Earth. They've attempted to water it down to the point where its basically meaningless and has nothing of value to offer anyone.

And like I say, they may as well be worshiping Alice in Wonderland as their "Holy Book" because they absolutely REFUSE to even claim that there is anything "Holy" about their book to begin with. They flat out DENY that it came from any God.

What a silly religion.

At least Christianity and Islam believe that there is an actual God behind their "Holy Books". So with them we have something that can be debated.

The Jews apparently even refuse to claim that there is a God behind their "Holy Books" or religion.

So now I understand Judaism. Although I had already surmised as much from having heard other Jews explain their beliefs. So I haven't really learned anything new here.

As far as I'm concerned the Jews are in extreme denial over what their own "Holy Texts" have to say. No doubt because they realize that they make no literal sense, yet for some reason they don't want to have to give up the religion. No doubt because it has become such an important part of their culture. So they feel the need to keep it in spite of the fact that it makes no sense.

[bluethread]

I'm saying that if there actually exists a supreme being who demands that we must obey his commandments and directives he should be able to make those commandments and directives crystal clear without any need for any "non-literal interpretations" by mere mortal men.

Why must those "demands" be crystal clear? Could it be that those "demands" are general and obtaining a proper understanding via study is part of the program?

In fact, what does "non-literal interpretations" even mean?

One that takes history, grammar and culture into account.

All it can mean is that someone doesn't like what something literally says so they pretend that it actually meant something different. Something it DIDN'T SAY.

False, that is only one reason why one would not go with an absolutely literal view, the one that best fits your straw man argument.

[cnorman19]

Oh, yes; and the Torah has nothing to say about Hell-fire at all, nor about any kind of punishment of "sin" for individuals, nor about any Afterlife. Those are all Christian inventions.

I was waiting for this lame claim. And I new it would be forthcoming as well.

Why would it not? It's the truth. Please explain why it's "lame." (Never mind -- he'll never refer to it again.)

If what you say here is true then there is no reason for me to even care about Judaism at all.

According to you, there is no hell-fire, and no punishment of "sin" for individuals. So clearly it doesn't then matter what I do anyway.

I didn't say that. I have said, and many times, that Judaism has no formal teachings about Hell or individual punishment for sin, and I for one don't profess to know if there is a Hell or not.

In other words, you have once again put words in my mouth that I did NOT say.

According to you there is no Afterlife. So your religion has nothing to offer anyway.

Again: I never said that. I said that Judaism has no formal teachings about an Afterlife, not that there is none. Many Jews do believe in an afterlife; many do not. It's left up to the individual, because it's not a concern of our religion. For me, once again, I do not profess to know.

So you have put words in my mouth AGAIN, without regard to anything I actually SAID.

Do you REALLY think "I don't know" is the same as outright denial? Can you explain that? (Once again -- never mind. He'll never refer to THAT remark again, either.)

What's the point to a religion that requires nothing, offers nothing, and can't be taken literally?

Is the only valid or acceptable reason for following a religion "going to Heaven"? Even when I was a Christian, I thought that a very shallow and selfish religion indeed. (And once again, that question will disappear into a black hole and never be heard from again.)

All I can say is that if your goal was to educate me on what Jews actually believe, I think you did a fine job.

Considering that you continually demonstrate -- as you have again, and very clearly indeed, right here -- that you have understood nothing at all of anything I've said, but merely replaced it with your own fantasies, assumptions, and stereotypes -- and, weirdly, stand by them even after they've been corrected by the person who SPOKE them -- I don't think you're entitled to make any claims about having been "educated" about anything at all.

I see no value in their "religion". As far as I can see their religion has no literal value, and apparently they aren't even sure if has to do with any God anyway.

And yet again, you stuff words into my mouth. I DO believe in God -- but not in the conventional old-man-in-the-sky, invisible-superbeing God that is characteristic of fundamentalist Christians. Too big and different an idea to get your head around, I'm sure; just as there's only one way to read the Bible, I feel sure that you're certain that there's only one way to believe in God. Anything else is just closet atheism. Right?

Jews believe in God in many different ways; some in a conventional way, others in less conventional ways, and some do not believe in a personal God at all. We leave each other alone about it, because -- and here comes another idea that you've never managed to wrap your head around, and can only deny, fulminate against, and sneer at -- Judaism is not about BELIEF.

(Wait and watch; this will become a claim that "Jews believe NOTHING." That's been the pattern up till now...)

As far as I can see the Jews have the most wishy-washy religion on Earth.

You have demonstrated that "as far as you can see" is not very far at all -- and you have done so with an impressive array of misstatements, distortions, direct contradictions, and ducked and dodged objections and arguments.

They've attempted to water it down to the point where its basically meaningless and has nothing of value to offer anyone.

Funny that it's survived for almost four thousand years, in that case. The Roman Empire is gone, along with their religion; so are the Assyrians and theirs, the Babylonians and theirs, the Persians and theirs, even the Greeks and theirs. We're still here. Seems pretty clear that we're doing SOMETHING right...

But then, you have no idea -- none at all -- of what Judaism actually is. All you have are your self-serving little fantasies.

And like I say, they may as well be worshiping Alice in Wonderland as their "Holy Book" because they absolutely REFUSE to even claim that there is anything "Holy" about their book to begin with. They flat out DENY that it came from any God.

Who has "flat-out denied" that the Bible comes from God? Who has "absolutely REFUSED" to "even claim" that there is anything "Holy" about the Bible? Where have I said that, or anything like it? Where has ANYONE? Got a quote? A link? ANYTHING? (And once again, fuhgeddaboutit; you'll never see any reference to that shovelful of nonsense again.)

So there you are, yet again; beating that same tired old drum, depending entirely on that same old insistence that I've said things that I've never said nor even come close to, and that same old insistence that my corrections and refutations mean nothing as if they've never even been posted.

Starting with "interpretation is not the same as denial or rejection," that simple and obvious truth that you can't allow into your hermetically sealed little world of sneering and contempt. That it MUST be still appears to be key to your whole analysis and dismissal of my religion (and, in fact, of ALL religion).

Who do you suppose is still taking that cheap bit of distortion and caricature seriously?

What a silly religion.

What a silly -- and fraudulent, and obviously specious -- excuse for "rational analysis."

At least Christianity and Islam believe that there is an actual God behind their "Holy Books". So with them we have something that can be debated.

The Jews apparently even refuse to claim that there is a God behind their "Holy Books" or religion.

Once again; please show where anyone here has ever said that God has nothing to do with the Bible, or that interpretation of the Bible constitutes a total rejection or denial of it, or any of the other nonsense you keep mechanically parroting.

Funny how often I ask you for quotes and proof of your distortions of my posts, and how you NEVER post anything to back them up, even though you'll happily repeat them ad nauseam -- and how you studiously IGNORE my own posting of DIRECT QUOTES which prove, for instance, that you are indeed peddling a false dichotomy that's based on a logical fallacy. Want me to post them again? Would you at least ACKNOWLEDGE them if I did?

Nah. You've made it clear; you can't even acknowledge your OWN arguments, even when they're proven in YOUR OWN WORDS.

Keep it up. It's getting almost funny to watch you wind yourself up in knots as you try to justify your bizarre claims and elementary misunderstandings and distortions of what others say.

So now I understand Judaism.

HAHAHAHA! You may THINK you do, but you prove with every post that you only understand your own contemptuous fantasies about it -- and about the Bible, and the ways that others study it and understand it, and even the very things I've been saying directly to you.

How strange to deny and distort statements to the very person who made them, in the apparent hope that I'm going to admit and agree with your twisting and falsifications. How very strange.

Although I had already surmised as much from having heard other Jews explain their beliefs.

Name three. If you've done as execrable a job of comprehending what they (allegedly) told you as you have of comprehending what I've said, I don't think you learned anything from them, either. IF they actually exist.

So I haven't really learned anything new here.

I don't think you've learned anything at all. That's not hard to see, and as I said, you're no longer fooling anyone. Well, maybe yourself.

As far as I'm concerned...

I fail to see how you are "concerned" at all, or why anyone would be interested in your uninformed -- in fact, WILLFULLY uninformed -- opinions on a subject you know less than nothing about. I say "less than nothing" because what you DO think you know is very clearly false, and it's a mystery to me how you can continue to claim that you know anything at all. You certainly haven't learned any of this wholly negative and nihilistic nonsense from me.

But feel free to continue to make that ludicrous claim...

...the Jews are in extreme denial over what their own "Holy Texts" have to say. No doubt because they realize that they make no literal sense, yet for some reason they don't want to have to give up the religion. No doubt because it has become such an important part of their culture. So they feel the need to keep it in spite of the fact that it makes no sense.

Thanks for that final demonstration of your contemptuous, willful ignorance and obstinate insistence on falsehoods that you WISH had come from me, and that you WISH were true.

You have proved nothing here except that your knowledge of the subject is nonexistent, that your reasoning is based on fallacy and false assumptions, and that your opinions are utterly worthless.

As I said at the very beginning with my first post this year: "...those who dismiss my own opinions (which are based on 20+ years of learning from various rabbis of different branches) will find that it will be equally easy for me to dismiss theirs."

And so I do; I dismiss your opinions as nothing, based on nothing, and worth nothing.

Thanks for the conversation. It was very illuminating, but perhaps not in the way you had hoped.

[bluethread]

At least Christianity and Islam believe that there is an actual God behind their "Holy Books". So with them we have something that can be debated.

Not all Christians and Muslims, some, like Thomas Jefferson, take a more Aristotelians approach.

The Jews apparently even refuse to claim that there is a God behind their "Holy Books" or religion.

Not all, Charles is just trying to get you to understand his positions and experience, in the hope that you and he could have a meaningful discussion on that basis and not your straw man view of his positions and experience.

So now I understand Judaism. Although I had already surmised as much from having heard other Jews explain their beliefs. So I haven't really learned anything new here.

I seriously doubt that. However, I have little doubt that you are correct about the fact that you haven't really learned anything new here. Teaching and learning are two different things and are not the responsibility of only one party.

As far as I'm concerned the Jews are in extreme denial over what their own "Holy Texts" have to say. No doubt because they realize that they make no literal sense, yet for some reason they don't want to have to give up the religion. No doubt because it has become such an important part of their culture. So they feel the need to keep it in spite of the fact that it makes no sense.

Though I think you are over simplifying Charles positions, you are presuming that things people do for purely cultural reasons make no sense. If that is the case, almost everyone, if not everyone, does a lot of things that make no sense. That said, I find, that most people, even atheists, do things primarily for cultural reasons.