Anonymous wrote:

(Note to self: Do not debate WalkerJ.)

hahaha - he's a smart cookie alright.

However, as a non-believer, I view all of this from a very different perspective. For me, science has all the answers I will ever need (so far, at least); there is no need for the super- or supra-natural. The wonders of Nature and our physical universe provide ample "creations" for me to cherish and preserve.

Fair enough. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, as I am not a Torah expert. If this is truly the case, it is an astonishing feat. I remain sceptical, as that is my nature. I will quickly add, however, that it does not need a supernatural explanation; determination is a sufficient effect.

Some of your brothers in the faith have argued that [Torah transcription errors] are still part of God's design (all things being, as it were, under his control), but I see you disagree with them.

I merely thought it would be helpful to you if I pointed out the discrepancies in your arguments. Apparently, you prefer to attribute these to misunderstandings.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for believing (or rather "knowing", as you put it) that the Torah is God's voice verbatim as opposed to, shall we say, a collection of nomads' superstitions?

Simply put, both opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism. Neither is heresy. However, this simple answer obscures the complexity behind the opinions themselves. Indeed, while both opinions may appear to you as contradictory, they may appear to a Torah Jew as harmonious.

For example, the existence of God's ultimate control does not contradict His giving free will and scribal fallibility to humans (both of which can contribute to Torah transcription errors). By definition, the fact that it is God Who "gives" these attributes demonstrates it is within God's "control" to give.

As easily as "giving," God can also "withhold" or "take away." The fact that God does one of these actions (in one particular moment of time) and not one of the other two actions (in the same moment) is a manifestation of His ultimate and final control.

By the way, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judasim:
(1) the opinion that God is an impersonal God Who (at least today) does not directly involve Himself in any human events (Einstein's opinion);
(2) the opinion that God sometimes does and sometimes doesn't directly involve Himself in human events (Maimonide's opinion); and
(3) the opinion that God always directly involves himself in all human events (Chasidus).

Likewise, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism:
(1) the opinion that free will is an illusion because God knows what we will have chosen;
(2) the opinion that free will is an illusion because our actions are nonetheless predetermined by other factors such as personality and psychological predisposition; and
(3) the opinion that free will exists and that God's knowledge of our future choice doesn't negate our free will and that we can overcome the predetermination posed by our personality/psychological predispositions.

I could go on, listing diverging opinions that all fall within the boundaries of Torah Judaism, but you probably get the idea now. There is plenty of room for individualistic thought and debate within the framework of Torah Judaism.

I recognize (as opposed to prefer) the existence of genuine misunderstanding.

I prefer (yes, I prefer) to simply move on, to avoid our primary dialogue bogging down in illusory disagreements based on mistaken perception.

I'd be glad to answer. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

"I, on the other hand, prefer to scrutinize my sentiments to see if there is any chance of my reaction being a reflex as opposed to deliberate and well thought out."

"In your reality God exists and, therefore, it seems plausible to you that God is able to do and be all of these things. For you, that issue has been "locked down", so to speak, and is no longer debatable."

"In my reality, the existance of God has not been established as anything other than a concept, thus it strikes me as illogical to base real-world arguments on such an abstract."

You assume that I don't scrutinize my words to sift reflex from deliberation. Well, you assume wrongly.

Your conclusion (that I am incapable or unwilling to debate the existence of God) is logically faulty.

Okay, it's good that I paused where I did, in my last response. Before I continue with an explanation why I conclude the Torah was given by God, I should explain why I conclude that God exists. Let's be careful and keep the horse before the cart.

"Based on the tone of your arguments here, I deduce that you see no merit to re-evaluating your position on God's existence until presented with newer evidence (which I might add is hardly unlikely to surface anytime soon)."

"The way I see it, a person with an open mind could, for instance, debate God's non-existence or the invalidity of the Torah with as much enthusiasm as when that person debates in their favor"

Based on my "tone?" Once again, you have wrongly assumed a particular conclusion regarding my position.

First, your old evidence may be new evidence for me (which, I might add, may indeed surface as you may indeed know something I don't; I am eager for that possibility).

Second, you omitted the key component of ANALYSIS of evidence. I explicitly stated that my conclusion regarding God's existence can change based on new evidence or new ANALYSIS of old evidence.

The way I see it, that is the definition of "playing devil's advocate." Yes, given a personal goal of debate for the sake of debate, I am willing and capable of enthusiastically playing devil's advocate and arguing both sides of an argument.

MY PERSONAL goal in this conversation is to personally test and re-evaluate my conclusion (that God exists) through the exchange of evidence - and the exchange of analysis of evidence - with someone who disagrees with my conclusion. The way I see it, THIS is the definition of a person with an open mind.

In this particular conversation, however, that is NOT my personal goal.
[/b]

Certainly let me know if you are unwilling to do this, and I'll stop wasting both our time. In any event, thank you for the dialogue up to this point.[/i]

"And I intentionally omitted it, because analysis is relative. The same piece of evidence may be examined by two separate parties and both may arrive at disparate conclusions. "

"My goal in this debate is to be, as you define it, the 'devil's advocate'."

"Just out of curiosity, what is your term for a person who holds nothing sacred and is willing to question and debate for and against everything."

OF COURSE analysis is relative, whereby two separate parties may arrive at disparate conclusions. That is precisely why I seek people who disagree with my conclusion; so that I might learn HOW they arrived at a disparate conclusion (i.e., their analysis) and potentially uncover a flaw in my own analysis. That is the point.

Your willingness to exchange ANALYSIS is a necessity, if I am to attain my own personal goal in this dialogue.

Are you willing to take one particular position and consistantly argue from within that paradigm? (If yes, then my goal may still be compatible with yours.)

I don't have a singular term in mind for what you describe. Your description is too broad.

"Analysis in science uses rules of logic vastly different than analysis in religious matters"

"for the sake of this argument, I will take the position that the Torah is the product of human authors who were inspired by nothing other than their personal agendas and influenced by nothing other than their environment and human nature.

"I will argue that the inconsistencies and inaccuracies contained in their writings support the hypotheses of human rather than divine authorship.

"I will argue that because there is no independent support of many of the events described in the Torah, that these portions cannot be relied upon for historical accuracy, and therefore could not be divinely inspired.

"I will compare the history of the Jewish religion and holy books with those of other religions in order to establish patterns in their evolutions.

"I will argue that because divine authorship cannot be proven, no religion based on the texts can rightly be referred to as anything other than a faith and therefore cannot be analyzed using scientific logic."

no religion based on the texts can rightly be referred to as anything other than a faith and therefore cannot be analyzed using scientific logic."

Forgive me, Walker, if I'm not understanding. But what I keep getting from you is that religion is an unkown made up completely of imaginations, while science is a fact. I don't think so.

Science may be made up of facts a preponderance of the time, but a lot of the time it is based on theory and presumptions, waiting to be proved or disproved.

Good. Let's begin. Please provide an example of "inconsistency" or "inaccuracy" in the Torah.

Genesis 1:25-26
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:18-19
18. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 6:19-20
19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2-3
2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."

It seems anachronistic that Noah would have a knowledge of clean versus unclean animals when the distinction was first made when God spoke to Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11.

The ritual of circumcision predates Abraham's time (supposedly @1950 BCE

Here we have the classic error that most critic's fall into when bringing up what appear to be discrepancies.

The animals were created from the ground, and they were brought before Adam, and they were created before Adam.

It is possible to know right from wrong without the written Law.

You will also notice that Noah was to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal. Reason being was that after the flood people would no longer be vegetarians but meat eaters.

Abraham was not born in 1950 B.C.E he was born 1950 years after the year of Adam's creation.

This predates Egyptian civilisation.

As a side note: It seems anachronistic that Noah would have a knowledge of clean versus unclean animals when the distinction was first made when God spoke to Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11.

For instance--one of my favourite passages to quote to TF about "Law of Love". When Potiphar's wife offered herself to Joseph he declined because he knew it to be a sin.