Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Monday, 25 May 2009

Get On the Bus

The Yeshiva World has an interesting piece on the latest push for mehadrin buses in Israel. Much to my shock, the piece was describing opponents of Taliban-styled buses in a positive light:
Tzipi Hotovely, who chairs the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, is working against the mehadrin lines in Jerusalem. Ms. Avital Feldman, who is a leader in the battle against mehadrin lines, states the response supporting their opposition is encouraging. She explains there are a growing number of complaints from women who have fallen victim to abuse on buses on which passengers demand they sit in the rear.
Hundreds of supporters, opponents of the mehadrin lines, are expected to take part in a kenos in Hebrew University in Yerushalayim on Monday. Feldman other anti-mehadrin activists organized the event. A panel will address attendees. Panel members include former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner, Jerusalem Councilwoman Rachel Azariya, feminist Dr. Orit Kamir and Prof. Alon Harel, a member of the law faculty.
Organizers are however disappointed that Transportation Minister (Likud) Yisrael Katz has declined an invitation. They explain his office released a laconic explanation, that he receives too many invitations to attend all the functions.

Like much else that has come out of the Chareidi community lately, mehadrin buses are a useless distraction from the bigger social/religious problems they have to deal with. Even the term mehadrin bus is a misnomer. In an area such as kashrus where competing stringencies and leniencies abound, one can use the term mehadrin but in an area like seating on bus where there are no rules in the first place, it's irrelevant. A married couple sitting together on a public bus is not somehow less stringent about the laws of gender interaction than a couple that chooses to sit separately. A bus is not a shul, after all.
Last year, the purifiers in our community chose to take aim at those of us that use Pesach hotels to escape for the holidays. We were told that they were the biggest threat to Judaism today! (A guest to our community a couple of weeks later told me that the biggest threat to Judaism today are the rabbonim who think that Pesach hotels are the biggest threat to Judaism today) Now we are told that not only is separate seating on buses an indicator of higher religious commitment but that women who refuse to see things this way are legitimate targets of abuse.
I would like to see the Chareidi leadership deal with rampant pedophilia in their yeshivos, their poor educational standards and their rampant poverty-by-choice problem before deciding that Am Yisrael is ready to stand on the sacred heights that separate seated buses afford us.


David said...


It's perfectly obvious to me that if women are allowed to sit wherever they like on busses, pretty soon they'll want to vote and drive cars. Then where will we be as a people?

Besides, if a Chareidi man makes the women sit in back, it automatically increases the chances that the seat next to him might be occupied by a cherubic, winsome, curly-haired little boy.

Shalmo said...

I am glad that you're open about many of the problems in the Orthodox world like the rampant pedophilia. And I'm also glad that you are trying to raise awareness to make it stop. The shock factor comes in seeing an Orthodox actually acknowledge that such problems even exist.

Isn't it wonderful that you are a Conservative.....OPPPPPS I meant Modern-Orthodox Jew oh great Garnel. How wonderful that due to being exposed to views opposing your own, you have developed keen skills on critical thinking.

Now imagine being a typical Ultra-Orthodox like a Haredi, with no secular education and thus having no critical thinking; hence living life denying that these problems exist.

And I'm assuming you also would prefer those government moochers to stop being told by infallible rabbis that working for a living is against Torah. And that you would prefer they adapt a Torah lifestyle more befitting living in the modern world.

And if that is truly the case then boss you really aren't that different from the average Conservative Jew. I would dare say you come off as being more Conservative than Orthodox.

Proud MO said...

Shalmo, the difference is that Modern Orthodox don't go against the Torah. Chareidim take on many stringencies, true, but MO still follow what's written. Conservative don't. Conservative Judaism is more like Christianity - oh, it's tough to keep this, and we want people to stay "in the fold", so we'll just make it so it's allowed - like driving to shul on Shabbos.

Manya Shochet said...

There's nothing in the Torah against working for a living. The haredim are the ones who have to warp logic to get a heter to have others support them while they ostensibly learn Torah.

I meet too many dim-witted and lazy guys learning in kollel to have much confidence in the ability of that system to weed out the unsuccessful and dim.

A friend of ours practices in a dental clinic that serves primarily haredim. One day he conducted an informal quiz with his (adult) patients asking them how many lungs they thought they had. Very many of them guessed wrong.

"Bilateral symmetry--It's not just a good idea, it's taxonomic law."

Manya Shochet said...

Bus-Related Opinion:

I'm a middle aged lady with a torn ligament in her knee, yet I manage quite happily to walk from the Jerusalem Central Bus Station to the Kotel, and often back again. No wonder all these young uber-Orthodox whelps find their urges so out of control--they don't get enough exercise. Give 'em 10 laps around the Old City Walls, on the double!

Off the Derech said...

>the ones who have to warp logic to get a heter to have others support them while they ostensibly learn Torah.

The haredim don't think. They simply listen to their rabbis.

That's where all the problems start and end.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

For the record, Shalmo, I'm Dati Leumi, not Modern Orthodox.

I also like ProudMO's answer but I disagree with his analysis of what makes Cosnervatism different.

Conservatism, for a long time, operated under cover of a halachic facade. Questions would be asked, answers would be voted on by committee, etc. The whole driving-on-Shabbos issue was not simply a case of "Oh, walking is too hard". Someone asked the question: what's more important, sitting alone on Shabbos or driving to shul to pray with other Jews and be part of the community? And a "teshuvah" was actually issues, one is which multiple halachic leniencies were misapplied but the point is that there was a process. It wasn't a case of rabbis saying "Oh, well, if it's hard, just drive".

What turned Conservatism into a ritual-heavy version of Reform was when they stopped even trying to use halachic terms to justify the answers. They just held out the principle: God wants me to be happy, X makes me happy, therefore X is permitted.

The other problem with their process, as Rav Avi Shafran noted in his classic essay "The Conservative Lie" is that if you look at the long history of shailos-teshuvos in the Conservative movement, you eventually come to a strange conclusion. Every time someone asked "Is X forbiddden?" the answer is "No". Every time some asks "Can I do Y?" the answer is "Yes". There is apparently no case of someone being denied something they want. That in itself points out the major problem with their system.

Honestly Frum said...

Tehy fish for ways to become more and more extreme by the day. They no longer practice Judaism and Halachah as it was intended by G-d and chazal rather it is some crazy chumrah based cult with each passing day trying to outdo the narishkiet from the previous day. Where does it all end? Take a look at Jewish History in the days of Shabtai Zvi for a clue. That, I believe is where these folks are headed, a new religion.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

That's not the problem, HF. The problem is that they're going to take the "Judaism" label with them. Who's going to fight to prevent them from narrowly rebranding what Judaism is?

Off the Derech said...

You're the problem.

Shalmo said...

Hey Garnel. I like your answer. I don't argue for the sake of arguing, I only argue when a case is legitimate. So I will concede this point. I agree with "some" of the things you said.

However I also think some of you have biases against Conservatives. "ProundMO" your post in particular is irritating. I agree that some conservative synagogues are no different than reconstrutionist/reform. However others are not really much different than any other Orthodox congregation except in what they call themselves.

Now Garnel you bring up an interesting point, in that "There is apparently no case of someone being denied something they want. That in itself points out the major problem with their system."

This point is worth good discussion. Again not all conservative congregations are like this. But it indeed is a valid point that if you don't have a religion that denies you something and instead lets you debate rules which seem problematic, then how can such a religion be used as a source of ethics? Ethics requires absolute rules, and taking this approach would make Judaism not much different than many of the ancient pagan religions which only gave the populace mythology but not moral/ethical rules. The matter is made more dire when we look to history and see that the Conservatives at one point even debated legitimizing gay marriage.

This is indeed an excellent argument against Conservatism. However, I don't believe all Conservative shuls do this.

However, there another side of the coin to consider.

It is blatantly true that the more religious/orthodox you get on the Jewish spectrum, the more fundamentalist you become, and the harder it becomes to criticize rabbis. The strength of conservatism is that they are willing to challenge and address traditional interpretations, and not make rabbis infallible. And thus leads to questions like is the DH true, is the world 6000 years old, evolution, the position of gentiles in jewish law, women's property rights, how reliable is the so-called oral Torah, and so forth. Conservatives are willing to address these issues, Orthodox for the most part (though there are exceptions) stay away from it.

Whether you like it or not, you have to give them credit where it is due. The Reform and Conservative keep runaways tied to judaism, if they didn't exist, then all those countless Orthodox would be lost to Judaism altogether.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

You... agreed.

{Bends over to pick up jaw off floor}

Hokay, I'm back.

Shalmo, you have to remember the historical origins of North American Reform and Conservativism to understand their various missions.

Reform was entirely about casting off the yoke of Jewish legal authority and creating an obligation-free religion. They have never been shy about admitting this. Reform is not about the 613 mitzvos, it's about what makes you feel good about yourself. Fine, I may disagree with them but they're being honest.

Conservatism, if you recall, isn't a breakaway from Orthodoxy but a reaction to Reform. Sol Schechter et al felt there was a place for a traditional Judaism that evolved with current values and ethics in the surrounding non-Jewish society. It began with an acceptance of halacha but over time it devolved as people, in the absence of any real red lines, moved the boundary of what was "Jewishly" acceptable further and further into Reform territory.

When Reformers call a woman to the Torah, they say it's because they want to. When you tell them the Shulchan Aruch says we don't do that, they ask "Shulchan what?"
When Conservatves do, they say it's because their Law and Standards Committee says it's okay too. When you mention Orach Chayyim, they say that their committee trumps the Shulchan Aruch because societal standards have changed.

But if you change the law every time society changes its ethics, what kind of specifically Jewish law do you have? You don't, just an echo of secular ethics wearing a cute kippah and tallis set.

The other problem with Conservatism is their legal setup. You have this Law committee and they vote on "halacha" for their followers. But, and I'm sure you know this, in order to be as democractic as possible they allow all dissenting opinions to be considered as part of the rules as long as at least 6 rabbis on the committee vote for the opinion. (Used to be worse, used to be only 1 rabbi)

For example, Conservatives count women to minyan because the committee voted you could. But since some rabbis voted against it, a Conservative shul can also make it a policy NOT to count women and still be considered part of the movement.


Dealing with issues like DH, TMS etc are not well handled by the Conservatives because in order to look at the issue, you must be prepared to consider that you are wrong, that the Torah was given at Sinai and is pretty much the same as we have it today. If you've a prior dismissed that belief, as Conservatism has, then you're not dealing with the issues, you're rejecting them.

Despite occasionally straying into kefirah territory, YU and its intellectuals are doing a far better job of dealing with the issues and coming up with appropriate frum responses.

Have a healthy, happy Shavous.

Shalmo said...

LOL. Yeah well I said I have no problem being shown I am wrong. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. Your arguments against conservatism are spot on so I will accept them. your criticism of how they handle laws and voting of rabbis is also correct.

However I am still not satisfied with your reply on the DH, 6000 year old world and the other issues and how orthodoxy handles them.

For one what makes you think the conservative movement does not accept mosaic authorship? Most conservatives begin with the priori that the Torah is the same, and Judaism is uncorrupted. Its true that they are more open to critical theories, as any honest religion should be. The question is do you want the Torah to be true or do you want to follow the truth. And if the truth is that the Torah is not preserved then is it honest to live a religious observance in denial of that? Or is it better to accept the criticism and then salvage the relgion from it. The people who run "Three Jews, Four Opinions" make the good point that the other branches of Jewry have dealt with critical scholarship and attempted to answer it, where as Orthodoxy (for the most part) has not addressed it at all. conservatism accepts both people who accept TMS and people who are against it in their branches.

And as someone who believes the evidence against TMS is astronimical, I believe the conservative and reform branches are more honest in their approach since theycreate a religion that accomodates these issues, rather than pretending they don't exist.

The issue only becomes dire when you consider that people who feel the evidence against TMS is so strong that to deny it would be dillusional yet they have to pretend to accept it when issues on conversion are brought up in Israeli courts. that's what's at the heart of controvery.

I don't believe in the DH necessarily and personally am divided on it. However I have my reasons for being against TMS, and if you are willing, then we can discuss it. I also would like to discuss other proof arguments like national revelation, and so on, but only if you're up for it.

Have a happy shavous!

E-Man said...

There is no evidence for or against TMS except the existence of the Torah and our tradition.

Shalmo said...

I disagree E-Man.

On particularly interest area is where traditional Jewish sources (like the Talmud, midrashim, and early commentators) quote a verse from the Torah that is different from the MT. That raises some impossible questions for people like you who insist that the text had remained unchanged since Moses.

The differences between chazal and the MT is covered in B. Barry Levy, Fixing God's Torah. For example, Gen 25:6 refers to Abraham's concubines (pilagshim). Rashi and Gen. Rabbah 61:4 note that this word is spelled "defectively" (that is, without the yud) and derive a lesson from this. However, the MT has is spelled with the yud. There are a bunch of other examples covered in the book.

So much for"there is no EVIDENCE for or against TMS except the existence of the Torah and our tradition". Your tradition very much undermines TMS. He-HAW!

But I will await what the great Ironheart himself has to say about my request.

E-Man said...

Apparently you missed centuries of where people talk about how some torahs have mispellings in them. All of these versions could have had an extra yud or an extra vav. The gemorah in kedushin clearly says this straight out. A deficient yud or vav or added yud or vav does nothing to our tradition so HEE Haww yourself. Go learn some gemorah and get back to me.

E-Man said...

I would suggest looking at the minchas chinuch the last mitzva, he goes through extensively what misspellings are not considered changing the mesorah. Also, look at the Ramban in his introduction to the chumash. Also, see the gemorah in kedushin on 31A I believe.

Shalmo said...

E-Man either you are brainwashing yourself or not bothering to read what has been provided.

the argument was what happens when the Talmud quotes verses from the torah, but when we turn to the torah we find that those verses don't even exist in version we are using today.

this implies the ancient rabbis were reading something else (a different version of the Torah) which they then quoted in the Talmud, which as I said raises impossible questions for people like you and Garnel who insist there is an infallible tradition dating back to Sinai

Clearly the Talmud shows this isn't the case otherwise your own rabbis wouldn't be quoting verses from the torah that don't even exist in the modern version.

When one examines the massive different between the various Torah manuscripts then this matter explains itself (in particular comparing DSS, LXX, MT and ST together we see that evidence points to gradual changes in the text).

But this is just icing on the cake. I will wait for Garnel to reply to me on whether he wants to discuss TMS or not, and if he agrees then I will type the major arguments.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Garnel will reply to you after Shavous. Sorry for the delay and have a happy holiday.

e-man said...

You did not listen to anything I said. First of all, they never quote a pasuk that does not exist, they quote a pasuk that is misspelled like color vs colour. This has no bearing on the validity of the Torah. If you would actually read the sources provided instead of making an ad hominem attack against the Torah then you would find the truth. You However, are clearly not looking for the truth. Enjoy never learning the truth and keeping your falsehoods.

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

Okay, quickly: There are indeed quotes in the gemara that don't exist in the Tanach. Having gotten about 2/3 of the way through the set, I've come across it 2-3 times. However, in all cases it is very clear from the context that these missing verses come from the Ketuvim portion of the Bible, twice from Mishle and third time I can't remember. I have not run across any non-existent verse in the Talmud.

Additionally, I myself will tell you that one of Rashi's comments proves there has been some minimal evolution in the text as somewhere in Vayikra he complains that a verse has the word "et" in it where it doesn't fit, while our version of the text and written Torah scrolls don't have the world "et" in them. Clearly his Torah did.

There is also a major difference between ascribing inaccuracy to the Torah as opposed to the rest of the Bible. Very few people would hold the integrity of the rest of the Bible to some kind of non-changing standard. It's simply not a principle of faith. The Torah, however is different.

So like E-man says, so what? "Colour" vs "color". We are not talking about new or missing laws, or anything important that those supposedly missing verses are going to change.

Shalmo, perhaps you could bring some specific examples to discuss.

Shalmo said...

Glad to oblige:

I think this matter can be better understood when comparing the Samaritan version to the Masoretic text:

rather than me just copying and pasting, please just read the article here:

Its a fairly short and quick read. But it shows that the masoretic text is far from perfect when compared to others like the samaritan torah; since the Samaritan version shows shows much greater internal consistency than the Masoretic version, the Samaritan version has neater grammer, and most importantly there is far lesser anthropormosphism in the samaritan version, etc etc. All of which add together to make the Samaritan Torah the best we have to date (I think). But it certainly rebukes the ideas that the masoretic text is the most reliable.

Shalmo said...

It is important to bear in mind that there is no a single verse in the Torah that says God himself will protect this scripture from being corrupted. Neither is there one in the New Testament either.

Often Jewish apologists will use this; “Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

This is a command unto the Jews. It does not say the Torah is infallible, neither does it say a PROPHET cannot bring a new scripture. Firstly, you should know that God is not speaking here. Clearly Moses is the speaker, as can be distinguished from the last part of the verse:
"that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Otherwise, it would have read (if God were the speaker):
"that ye may keep MY commandments"

It is a command from Moses to his followers to not change the scripture. It does not say "There will be no-one who can change the scripture".

And just for the sake of argument:

The final book of the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Torah) opens with the introductory observation, "These are the words that Moses spoke to all of Israel on the far side of the Jordan river...." (Deuteronomy 1:1)

Unlike the other four books, Deuteronomy is largely a record of Moses' speeches, spoken in the first person to the people before his death. The Talmud affirms that this book is qualitatively different than the others. Moses wrote the other books of the Torah in God's name; Deuteronomy, on the other hand, Moses said on his own. (Megillah 31b)


Moses could not have composed this book on his own, for a prophet is not allowed to say in God's name what he did not hear from God. (Shabbat 104a)

(I am not at all convinced by counterarguments for this one from the frum crowd)

If we read the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 8, Verse 8 it says this

8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

It is very clear from the text that the scribes have corrupted the Law. How did they corrupt it? With their mouths by giving false interpretations? No! They did so with their "pens". Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something?

After all the context reveals that in fact Jeremiah was against the entire religious establishment of the time. He refers to prophets and priests as frauds after all, giving this verse even more contextual sense.

Shalmo said...

Anyhow, the rabbis themselves in history have recognized that the current Torah has undergone alteration at the hands of the scribes. This is called tikkun Soferim. What they did is that in certain places they felt the text needed "correction" to avoid what they considered to be theological problems, so they'd substitute different words/expressions of their choosing.

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression ("Scripture has used euphemistic language," i.e. to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathy).

Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue.

The term tikkun Soferim has been understood by different scholars in various ways. Some regard it as a correction of Biblical language authorized by the Soferim for homiletical purposes. Others take it to mean a mental change made by the original writers or redactors of Scripture; i.e. the latter shrank from putting in writing a thought which some of the readers might expect them to express.

The assumed emendations are of four general types:

* Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g., the substitution of ("to bless") for ("to curse") in certain passages.

* Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton; e.g. substitution of "Elohim" for "YHVH" in some passages.

* Removal of application of the names of false gods to YHVH; e.g. the change of the name "Ishbaal" to "Ishbosheth."

* Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at Jerusalem.

(We don't know how reliable or correct any of these changes were, under what authority they did so, and whether any of the changes were even needed. If it was a prophet who did this then it would be a different matter, but clearly these changes were made by fallible men)

Anyway these are just a few small issues I wanted to get out of the way. I await your response on them, then I'll the add in the real big arguments I have against TMS.


Anonymous said...

Shalmo, care to share your sources?

Anonymous said...

Also Shalmo, I think you mean the Karite version. The samaritans are no longer around, only Karites.

Shalmo said...

Who are you?

Are you E-Man taking on an an anonymous name?

Exactly what do you want sources on? Everything above was sourced?

Anyway Garnel I am still waiting for your responses to the above arguments.

After we have hashed away these small issues, then we can discuss the major problems around TMS. If you don't wish to discuss them then that's fine too. Peace!

Shalmo said...

"Also Shalmo, I think you mean the Karite version. The samaritans are no longer around, only Karites."

This is false

Both Karaites and Samaritans still exist today

And as I showed above as far as grammatical, philosophical, internal consistencies are concerned the Samaritan Torah is far far far superior to the masoretic version. Not to mention its greater amount of anthropormorphism compared to the Samaritan Torah. Thus amongst all Torah manuscripts available today, the Samaritan is the best preserved.

This doesn't mean the Samaritan version is right, it just means the masoretic Torah is a very untidy peace which makes TMS with it very hard to believe.

I hope Garnel answers my above inquiries

E-Man said...

Yes, it is e-man. Where do you see the samaritans are around? I did not see that in your sources. However, the karites have a sect in israel. I don't know where the samaritans are. If they exist great, but I have never heard nor seen any of these samaritans that you speak of. Ture there was once a group that the gemorah talks about being kutim, they even had a temple on mount grizim. However, I believe they are not in existance anymore. Also, I wanted sources for the assumed amendations.

E-Man said...

My apalogies. There are 712 samaritans alive today, or at least they claim to be. Also, they have revisionism in their Torah. Like the mountain is har grizim and not mount moriah. Anyways, i think the best torah to compare the MT to would be the karaite torah not the samaritan. I mean, if you want to compare two torahs that are trying to be the same. The samaritan Torah differs greatly because tehy believe the history happened differently. At least that is what wikipedia says.

Shalmo said...

YOU claim they have "revision" in their Torah. they could say the same to you

But here's the deal. They have a much better preserved Torah than you as the above link shows, so evidence of editing would point towards the masoretic text instead

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

I don't care what they claim. It's quite clear that their Torah has important changes that they made to suit their revisionist version of Judaism. Once that's established, it doesn't matter to me how well preserved their stories are. A well preserved forgery is still a forgery.

E-Man said...

WOW, BIASED! The Samaritan Torah dates back 3000 years? Oh that is right this article says nothing about that. YOU are Assuming that since it repeats things in its Torah verbatim that means it is preserved. Strange how that is made up logic. If you knew anything about Judaism that uses the MT, we LEARN from every word in the Torah. There is a specific reason everything is written the way it is. The Samaritans could have easily corrected the text how they would think it fits better. That and the fact that they say Har Grizim was the site of the temple and based on all the historians we have we know it was built later than the temple of solomon, in fact it was during the second temple era. Anyways, keep making things up, that will help your cause.

E-Man said...

However, if you want to compare our torah to the karaite version, that would be acceptable.

E-Man said...

Here is a good website to check out

Shalmo said...

E-Man do you know how many logical fallacies you keep spouting

And didn't you in the previous thread just say you never want to speak to me again. Don't tell I am making you second guess your religion so easily

Garnel if they made everything up then why do they have a much better preserved Torah than you do. You would expect the forgers to have the deficient Torah, but instead you guys are the ones with the defective version

How did the Samaritans get a more preserved Torah than you?

E-Man said...

Oh, you are the same guy. I thought this was just the common name people go under when they want to make illogical assumptions. Ok then we are done here. My only hope is that you read some stuff that has basis in reality. Like read up on the dead sea scrolls and stuff like that. You would be shocked how many of them agree with the MT over the samaritan bible. Oh, or you can go on spreading lies ad when you get uncomfortable just swear, that makes everything better.

Shalmo said...

And Garnel I am STILL LIKE A PUPPY waiting for you to answer the small arguments against TMS I put forward in the new thread

If you don't wish to engage them then please just say so

I will respect you more if you are man enough to say you just don't know. Which is fine with me.

But unless we hash out these small arguments against TMS, we will never get to the big ones which I still haven't posted because you refuse to address the small already given to you

I had no idea disproving TMS was this easy. But alas!

Shalmo said...

Actually E-Man the dead sea scroll prove there is MASSIVE corruption in the Torah.

I wish talk about BIG issues against TMS as soon as my Lord Garnel addresses the small ones first, because I do not want the conversation to go all over the place

I want to discuss one topic at a time for the sake of order.

E-Man said...

Shalmo please stop lying check out their section on the dead sea scrolls.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Shalmo, go check the other thread. Come on, boy, fetch!

(Well you said you were like a puppy...)

Shalmo said...

E-Man I don't know what you are trying to pull but the DSS is far closer to LXX and samaritan torah than your masoretic scroll as I showed in the other thread that Garnel is pointing to

Shalmo said...

Here E-Man

this list, which gives substantially more cases of agreement between the LXX and the DSS in distinction to the Masoretic:

There's around 200 or so instances listed on there where the LXX and the Masoretic disagree in the Torah, yet the DSS supports the LXX version). The Jewish apologists will often use Deut. 4:2 to make argument such as "The Torah tells us not to change the scripture, therefore, we never would have done it", even though the documentary evidence clearly shows that's exactly what happened, and their own past scholars have admitted as much ("Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue..)

E-Man said...

False, read this article You are making stuff up. About 80% of the dss support the MT. The LXX is a translation and therefore will have different words than the original Torah. Unless you believe Translations can be word for word which doesn't make any sense. But read the article by gil student and you will see the errors of your ways. It is ok. I just read it and it is a wonderful piece and will explain to you everything you question.

E-Man said...

Oh this article that I quote actually has support in facts and scholarly books. You know those guys who actually compare and contrast the differing Torahs.

E-Man said...

You realize the site you posted is very disingenuous. It compares the different torahs in ENGLISH. Neither the DSS, LXX or mesoretic text are WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. How does that prove anything. But if you check the article written by gil student he compares the DSS and the MT in Hebrew. Oh and as I said before the LXX is not written in hebrew either, but Gil deals with all these ideas so just read his article.

Shalmo said...

You are distorting my points (which I'm not surprised)

The point was that the DSS matches much closer to the LXX and samaritan torah than your masoretic text

You can repeat a lie only so many times before you start brainwashing yourself into believing its the truth

Here is the link for you again:

And please stop lieing. They paste their findings in english, but that doesn't mean they haven't read each text in its original language

Shalmo said...

E-Man I would honestly like for you to consider whether or not you are wrong

What you did was link me to a comparison site written by an Orthodox Jew who we both know has an agenda in proving the Torah is as preserved as possible

It written by a man name "Gil Student" and his fraudalent defense is already famous all over the internet. Thus he is not reliable at all. Its like asking me to go to Jewish Philosopher to learn about evolution.

I would like you to think for yourself whether what you follow is the truth. I already have my arguments for why Judaism is a lie, and its not just the corrupted Torah that makes me feel that so its not like posting apologetics sites will convince me. I am simply here to discuss my views on TMS with Garnel, but don't think you can convince me of the "truth" of Judaism when you are not even aware of any of the reasons I have for believing this religion is false.

E-Man said...

"And please stop lieing. They paste their findings in english, but that doesn't mean they haven't read each text in its original language"

Any proof for that claim????

"What you did was link me to a comparison site written by an Orthodox Jew who we both know has an agenda in proving the Torah is as preserved as possible"

Because he is orthodox he must be wrong. Did you look at his sources, reliable. Your source compares english versions buddy.

He has sources so I don't know why he is considered wrong. Now you are just using ad hominems.

Also, I don't really care why you do or don't believe in Judaism, but when you spread false ideas that bothers me. Again, how can you compare two things written in different languages, that being the DSS and LXX. You are also relying on that website which compares things in english. Not very convincing. However, Gil Student compares things in Hebrew and basis almost everything he says on well respected sources. You have a website on geocities, without any real sources except stating that everything is a translation that compares the three texts IN ENGLISH.

E-Man said...

Also, check out this site where it talks about Isiah and Daniel from the DSS corresponds extremely close to the MT Oh no, a religious guy with proof for his religious texts, he must be false and lying. Or, since he has proof, that is absolute, he is telling the truth.

Shalmo said...

You are hopeless!

What you are doing is called the "proof by repeated assertion" fallacy. Repeating a lie enough times makes it true to the one who does it.

I will let the others reading this debate here determine who is being honest in his approach

E-Man said...

I am telling the truth trying to counter your every attempt to do exactly what you accuse me of, proof by repeated assertion. This is what you do. In fact I think DrJ once called you out on it also. In fact, the reason I am doing this is because I continuously see you repeating the same argument, WITHOUT SOURCES OR PROOF. Therefore, I am sending people to a website that actually quotes sources.

E-Man said...

Here is my last source:
Q: What do we know about the Samaritan Pentateuch?
A: The Samaritans made their own copy of the Torah in the second century B.C., though the earliest surviving Samaritan copies are from the Middle Ages. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.125-126. The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls vol.1 p.277 says "the Samaritan Pentateuch tends to expand the text by frequently inserting parallel material from other places in the Pentateuch."
The Samaritan Pentateuch compares very closely with the Massoretic text and Dead Sea scrolls, except for some obvious changes (Mt. Gerizim instead of Jerusalem, etc.) All of the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts are Medieval though. Some of them are Codex Add. 1846 (1100 A.D.), Codex B (1345/1356 A.D.), Manuscript E (1219 A.D.), and the Abisha’ Scroll (12th -13th century). See The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls p.93-95 for more info.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, one manuscript from Qumran cave 4 is Exodus from the Samaritan Pentateuch. According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.5 p.934-939, here are the differences, from least important to most significant.
The grammar of the Samaritan Hebrew was a little different
Copyist errors are frequent in the manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
Phrase Smoothing was done for some of the most archaic and difficult Hebrew phrases were replaced with phrases easier to understand for Samaritans. Some prepositions, nouns, subject, and appositives were added to the Samaritan text, to clarify the meaning, not unlike a Bible paraphrase today.
Altering objectionable passages was done. For example,
Worshipping God on Mt Gerizim instead of Mt. Ebal is the most famous one. (Dt 27:4)
The word "Elohim", from which one might infer a plurality of gods, is changed to the singular form in Genesis 20:13; 31:53; 35:7; Exodus 22:8.
Consolidation: In the Samaritan Pentateuch many passages in Deuteronomy are added right before or after the corresponding passage in Numbers, or in one case Exodus.
Dt 1:6-8 is added right before Num 10:11
Dt 1:20-23 is added right before Num 14:41
Dt 2:2-6 is added right after Num 20:13b
Dt 2:9 is added right after Num 21:11
Dt 2:17-19 is added right after Num 21:12
Dt 2:24-29,31 is added right after Num 21:20
Dt 3:24-28 is added right after Num 20:13.
Dt 2:8 and 10:6-7 are based on Num 20:17-18 and Num 33:31-38a.
Dt 11:29-30 and 27:2b-3a,407 after Ex 20:17, and telling the Israelites to build the temple on Mt. Gerizim.
Dt 27:2-7 is after Dt 5:21.

-So I am sorry, there was one samaritan scrap found among the dead sea scrolls, but most of them, as stated in the other post, are MT.