6 million Jews at Mount Sinai? (contributions, food, believe, Catholics)

[whoppers]

Not much further to say concerning this little digression into the merits of traditional approaches and non-traditional approaches. There's still name-calling and labelling, still just traditional statements without any evidence (besides the usual "outsiders" cannnot understand), still a claim that the only true "Jewish" views are Rabbinic or Traditional views (I don't expect that to not be so, as this is the mark of sectarian fundamentalism), still arguments based on "I've never heard or properly studied these people, therefore their evidence is invalid", etc. Still the same Fundamentalist attitudes towards a subject. We get it - you're steeped in your tradition and you feel it is the only valid tradition.

It is the furthest thing from trickery to cite scholars (even if orthodox jews are unfamiliar with them or feel their results are "non-jewish") who are considered experts in their field. As in all matters, readers are invited to consider the evidence (and not be chained to a traditional view that attempts to insult-away the evidence), and make their own decision. If this forum is a reflection of the world's attitude towards such matters, then it should be obvious which "side" (and these sides were never meant to be so marked, mind you - at least, not by me) will have more common sensical influence. If that's doubtful, then you're severely overestimating the popularity of Fundamentalist Orthodox Judaism as the only way of reading the Bible, let alone as the only Judaism in existence. Calling everyone who isn't in that camp "Karaites" or "hyrbid jews" (and the dreaded "non-jew"!) is not helpful, or accurate, either - there have been many forms of Judaism, even since the beginning of the religion.

Flipflop, I appreciate your attempt at moderating NY Jews' extremism, but you're just taking over his helm when you continue his comments in a less abrasive, but just as extremist, manner. As I've said, if the only defense against Seeker's (and most modern scholars - whether jewish or non-jewish) statements are appeals to tradition - who is that going to convince? Only those already in the tradition. It's possible to use both approaches and be tactful, but it cannot be done in the face of such loud protestations using the appeal to tradition - that tends to push people away to a more moderate, non-traditional approach. They tend to begin equating tradtionalism with extremism; and that is not helpful, or accurate - or is it? This thread implies one conclusion, unfortunately.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by NY Jew

1. they don't mean well (and you should never speak that way about a bunch a kofriem)

TOS states English only, I am guessing this is the equivalent of the Arabic kaffir/kufar which by its very meaning is as insulting as the n word in the USA. Pretty much sums up your level of acumen in biblical knowledge. Please insult me in English so that I can return the favour.

2. unlike them I can read original sources therefore I'm not really interested what a am harezt like Kugel or 90% of the other "Scholars" have to say.

So you are saying the original sources are 180' is opposition to what has been translated into English? This is a moot point as IF this was the case there would be acknowledgement that there was such a significant error. I mean do you think there is some huge conspiracy?

The reason I started this thread, it was a Jew here that made the claim of 6M at mount Sinai, I knew it was 600k (men only) and the number came to approximately 2M.

1. also like me compares to recent times and worked backwards (but unlike him I used Jewish populations and he used non jewish) and 2 he made a very big assumptions in his theory (for example it seems that usually the Tannaim did not speak of rare cases) that are easily disprooven and statements that should be explained in other ways. (when it says "knowing how to read" it means how to punctuate with out punctuation notes which would have to be known through tradition even if the person was 100% literate)
a perfect reason why I don't care what "scholars" have to say

That is fine and dandy for personal faith but the fact remains that many many scholars do not hold your sentiment and the archaeological records refute the claim of exodus. This is also true of the flood and creation myths, they did not happen as much as you pretend that they did regardless of your claims folk were literate or not (see below)

5. the rock at Horeb was movable (see mesechtas Tanis)

Why not cite this? Oh I know it is probably only available to those that can read Hebrew? Well Whoppers can so enlighten the world and let him elucidate us.

This rock was moveable?

Sorry that is special pleading aka appeal to magic. In my country of origin we have similar rock outcrops the matopos hills (aka matoba hills)


This is but one that is pretty well known. The area is relatively flat and there are rocks that are a close match the the Horeb one. Of course we know how these came about, millions of years of wind erosion. There is even a rock that is split very much like Horeb. The only difference, the Matopos is in a savannah area whereas the RoH is in the desert. In fact, your myth would have more credence of actually have happening in Africa as there is an abundance of water, grass land, high rainfall and is flat.

unless you (also goes for my other critique) can read the original you're opinion is completely worthless. So I ask can you understand Hebrew?

Yes he can, your point?

Originally Posted by NY Jew

I'll explain my point again because you clearly didn't get it.

Despite many changes Jewish culture in the past 2000 years 1 constant has been that there has always been a majority of male jews who could read. To assume things were different before that with out any evidence to support that theory would be illogical.

Ok this claim differs very little from that of Muslims that can recite the qu'ran and not even know Arabic. This IMO is the same level of "literacy" that Jews claim.

Of course I am not going to claim to know all there is to know of Jewish culture just like I cannot assume to understand anything of any other culture like the black folk in Africa. I have a fair inkling of both having studied yours somewhat and having been in Africa all my life.

Originally Posted by theflipflop

NY Jew, I sort of agree with your point #1 above. But I've had a back and forth with these two for the last several weeks, and I've found them both to be respectful in their communication style. I don't agree with them on almost anything, but they do keep it above the line.

Thank you but there is no need to be sensitive here. Perhaps you folk think this is leading to the legitimacy of Israel and the Jews and yes I have seen this angle posed but my agenda is not that. I have my own opinions of Israel (politically) which is another topic altogether. This aspect of my thread, challenges the very validity of the exodus account where the laws of Moses where apparently derived. Both your religion and the christian one is relegated to folklore as extra biblical evidence is not supporting the concept of this ever happening. (I am a poly-atheist)

On your point #2, I too can read the original source material, and I too am little interested in what Kugel or other similar "scholars" have to say. I take my "cues" from the meforshim, not a bunch of secular scholars i can't relate with. And when Whoppers pulls out an Orthodox Jewish scholar who supports one of his points, even though I've never heard of these "scholars," I can assure you their ideas would not be welcome in any mainstream shul in America. Nobody calling themself a religious Jew would ever say the Torah was authored by multiple people and ideas we're "retrojected backwards" into the timeline. It's just a terribly terribly un-Jewish viewpoint to hold. My guess is the scholars Whoppers refers to are some kind of hybrid Jews (like Karaites) or non-Jews altogether (like messianic). And it's trickery to wave these scholars in the faces of the uneducated, impressionable masses who frequent this website.

I think you make assumptions that are not valid. Strange we do not see folk that have studied Egyptology making this same apologetic.

I am no linguistic expert concerning ME languages and I have to take it on good faith the experts are not lying to us. This has already been addressed a number of times by Whoppers and he has explained at some length his scholarship.

You claimed a life long scholarship under a certain type of Rabbi is needed to understand the Torah yet my 50 years of cognitive exposure to the (albeit xian) bible and years of research counts for nothing? Is that not a little presumptuous of you?

My target is the "impressionable uneducated" masses as they are never taught the real truth concerning these tales of folklore and accept those in authority's take of scriptures.

They say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet both Jew and Christian make the same special appeals. The Jew states you need to read the original texts which BTW no longer exist and the Christian claims you need the Holy Spirit, which in your case would be the medium whereby God spoke with the Jewish prophets of yore. This simply boils down to special pleading and is what I term a cop out.

If either the Jewish bible or the xian bible incorporating yours, were the "word of god" it would require no apologies and stand on its own merit. Sadly, for both, this is NOT the case.

Lastly, the English translation, I have studied these aspects in over 25 different translations and guess what, all of them say essentially the same thing. Many of them went back to the original Hebrew and corrected earlier translation errors like that of the alleged virgin vs. young maiden in Isaiah.

To suggest that ALL of these translations are in "error" means that there is a world wide conspiracy of christian scholars against the Jews and I find it hard esp with you to even suggest such a thing.

Perhaps you should actually research how translators work and you would be surprised that there were folk literate in ancient Hebrew who participated, some even Jews. I would hazard a guess that not many Jews are literate in ancient Hebrew as it has changed just like all languages change over time.

[theflipflop]

This has been such a fascinating discussion with you two. I don't think I've ever participated in just such a discussion in my life. There's so much I've learned so far, and I really appreciate the dialog. When I get a bit snarky with you two, it's not out of maliciousness. I think I've avoided direct insults (but perhaps the indirect kind I'm adept at - really, I'm sorry for that. ) I'd like to keep this discussion going. And keep it above the line.

For what it's worth, I think your viewpoints are not unreasonable. They are not what I believe, obviously, but I think a more middle of the road kind of person would find your viewpoints much much more palatable than mine.

I hope I can bring something of value to those following this thread. If I may repeat one of my mantras here at this site, is that my views on religion are not meant for non-Jews. I have nothing to convince either of you of. You're clearly better off thinking what you think as opposed to what I think. It's only Jews who I'd like my views on religion to ring a bell with here. Although I do find it enjoyable just to state where I stand, and then see the range of responses. I don't do that to be a troll - my opinion are for real. But I'm generally shocked and amazed when the anti-semites come out of thr wood works. Even more amazed when somebody asks me why Jews don't believe in "he who must not be named." Am I a meglomaniac for thinking my coming to this site several weeks ago has livened the joint? Of course I can't answer that, as I wasn't here before myself to compare.

[Clark Park]

Interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the discussions here.

Of course matters of faith are perceived in a different realm than matters of science and logic. I do not see so much importance whether it was 6 million, or 600,000, or just 6,000 Israelites who left bondage in Egypt ... it was the act of redemption and liberation that teaches a lesson, nothing more or nothing less.

[SeekerSA]

FF, You have been one of the more interesting Jews to talk to in recent times and no this place has always been lively.

Just a side note, you know I do not believe jesus was a real person, perhaps a rebellious Jew that irked some Roman authorities and perhaps someone that went against mainstream Jewish thought of the era, why can you not do as I do and name him with a lower case j. I find it odd that mentioning his name can be seen as blasphemous b/c that from my stance would appear that Jews do in fact give credence to his alleged existence and/or possible deification which is more than what atheists give him credence for.

I understand the persecution complex of Jews as they have really been singled out in the past. I really think civilisation has moved past that point and as the global populace becomes more enlightened, that is likely never to happen again. Of course there are still instances of the more modern term of xenophobia and there have even been recent genocidal incidents in Africa. The world is just too small to allow that from happening again w/o a rapid retort.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

Interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the discussions here.

Of course matters of faith are perceived in a different realm than matters of science and logic. I do not see so much importance whether it was 6 million, or 600,000, or just 6,000 Israelites who left bondage in Egypt ... it was the act of redemption and liberation that teaches a lesson, nothing more or nothing less.

I could go with the premise of redemption from a POV of folk sticking together to overcome oppression. That in itself has been played out many times in History. In Africa we find that as recent as the last century.

What stands out more for me is the resilience of the Jews more in recent history rather than alleged happenings 3500 years ago. The simple message is one of hope for humanity a a whole.

Perhaps us atheists share similar common bonds and see common flaws in religion based also on recent history that used myth and superstition to oppress peoples. The retired Bishop Desmond Tutu who was instrumental in the Truth and Reconciliation of South Africa's transition from apartheid to one of mutual acceptance and tolerance made a joke.

The white man came to our land with the bible and said let us pray. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and they had the land.

This from a RCC bishop which in itself is ironic to say the least.

I was indoctrinated with the concept black people were sub human and the fear of savagery retribution instilled in us kids based on the actions of the Mau Mau in Kenya against the white settlers there. We fled south as the countries gained independence and majority rule yet one can go to most African countries w/o fear of being killed merely b/c you are white. Of course there are shiesters that will con you of your possessions if you are not street savvy even here in SA. Best to work with accredited tourist groups.

Then when in SA where I now am, the same fears and then we released Nelson Mandela that did exactly the opposite of all expectations. Very few white folk have no respect for him other than the die hard racists. He is now in the annuls of history and shares the same icon status as Gandhi. Oddly enough, both indirectly victims of religious bigotry.

These recent heroes stand out more IMO than the mythical once of the biblical fame as their recent history is in fact verifiable.

The first opening of the new SA parliament, the outgoing regime insisted that it be opened with a religious (read: christian) ceremony. Nelson Mandela complied but then said all faiths should participate. Thirteen sages from the major faiths took part ending with a traditional witch doctor from Nelson Mandela's tribal affiliation. It took two hours for the ceremony and that was the last time religion had anything to do with politics in SA or parliament was opened with any religious ceremony. 16 years on and we have not seen mass retribution of the past against whites apart from some criminal acts against white farmers.

Oppressed people will always rebel and arise. Sometimes the new leaders simply adopt the old methods and move forward looking after themselves first as has sadly been the mantra of much of liberated Africa.

South Africa was different as prior to the "hand over" there was a new fair and balanced constitution drawn up with checks and balances ensuring minority rights, it is not perfect but way better than what we had.

25 years ago I bought a gun for self protection. I have never had to use it and it has been in my safe for the last 18 years, I no longer need to carry it. How is that for progress?

[NY Jew]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

TOS states English only, I am guessing this is the equivalent of the Arabic kaffir/kufar which by its very meaning is as insulting as the n word in the USA. Pretty much sums up your level of acumen in biblical knowledge. Please insult me in English so that I can return the favour.

thank you for proving to me you don't know hebrew.
Kofer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are saying the original sources are 180' is opposition to what has been translated into English? This is a moot point as IF this was the case there would be acknowledgement that there was such a significant error. I mean do you think there is some huge conspiracy?

to properly anything something you need to read it in the original

That is fine and dandy for personal faith but the fact remains that many many scholars do not hold your sentiment and the archaeological records refute the claim of exodus. This is also true of the flood and creation myths, they did not happen as much as you pretend that they did regardless of your claims folk were literate or not (see below)

you didn't respond to my point whatsoever.
a review
1. I stated that there was jewish literacy in the roman era.
2. you gave me an article that "proved there wasn't by quoting a "scholar"
3. I showed you logically where the scholar made his mistake
4. you respond with this "That is fine and dandy for personal faith but the fact remains that many many scholars do not hold your sentiment and the archaeological records refute the claim of exodus."

so either you didn't understand what I said (which would be my fault because I didn't explain them properly) or you are just trying to deflect the fact that you don;t even know the ABCs of jewish history in the roman era.

This rock was moveable?

Sorry that is special pleading aka appeal to magic. In my country of origin we have similar rock outcrops the matopos hills (aka matoba hills)



This is but one that is pretty well known. The area is relatively flat and there are rocks that are a close match the the Horeb one. Of course we know how these came about, millions of years of wind erosion. There is even a rock that is split very much like Horeb. The only difference, the Matopos is in a savannah area whereas the RoH is in the desert. In fact, your myth would have more credence of actually have happening in Africa as there is an abundance of water, grass land, high rainfall and is flat.
Yes he can, your point?

that wasn't the rock so I'll agree with you on this 100%.

Of course I am not going to claim to know all there is to know of Jewish culture just like I cannot assume to understand anything of any other culture like the black folk in Africa. I have a fair inkling of both having studied yours somewhat and having been in Africa all my life.

your knowledge of jewish history is on less then a first grade level if you could make this statement " The question of multiple exterminations seems to be undocumented." this ranks as one of the most ignorant things Ive ever read by some who claims to know Jewish history.

Thank you but there is no need to be sensitive here. Perhaps you folk think this is leading to the legitimacy of Israel and the Jews and yes I have seen this angle posed but my agenda is not that. I have my own opinions of Israel (politically) which is another topic altogether.

I never thought this about you (but now that you introduced it things make more sense)

This aspect of my thread, challenges the very validity of the exodus account where the laws of Moses where apparently derived. Both your religion and the christian one is relegated to folklore as extra biblical evidence is not supporting the concept of this ever happening. (I am a poly-atheist)
I think you make assumptions that are not valid. Strange we do not see folk that have studied Egyptology making this same apologetic.

The written bible in judisim is thought to be like a map with out a map key.

You claimed a life long scholarship under a certain type of Rabbi is needed to understand the Torah yet my 50 years of cognitive exposure to the (albeit xian) bible and years of research counts for nothing? Is that not a little presumptuous of you?

when your attacking things that any kindergardener knows that jewish tradition answer that would be yes

My target is the "impressionable uneducated" masses as they are never taught the real truth concerning these tales of folklore and accept those in authority's take of scriptures.

I know that that is why I'm responding to show everyone that you don't have the tools to respond.

They say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet both Jew and Christian make the same special appeals. The Jew states you need to read the original texts which BTW no longer exist and the Christian claims you need the Holy Spirit, which in your case would be the medium whereby God spoke with the Jewish prophets of yore. This simply boils down to special pleading and is what I term a cop out.

except the jewish version requires intellect, says you are missing key information and is based on the simple assumption that in order to disprove something completely you have to be able to read it in the original. Your "Holy Spirit" comparison just says you can't do it with out some supernatural force. You want to respond to us go study for a few years and come back.

If either the Jewish bible or the xian bible incorporating yours, were the "word of god" it would require no apologies and stand on its own merit. Sadly, for both, this is NOT the case.

except traditional Judaism claims that the written bible is only part of the word of god


please respond to my refutation of your jewish Roman illiteracy claim. because that is a central point to your key claim.

the facts are for as long as we have real records majority of all male jews could read. and to assume that it was different before that with zero proof to the support that would be ludicrous.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by NY Jew

thank you for proving to me you don't know hebrew.
Kofer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never claimed I did.

Perhaps you should actually read what I post instead of drawing your own convolutions, might help to not make you look so silly. As for the word you now link to, kofer you said kofriem, that is why I found nothing googling. Furthermore, the link does not explain the term/word.

to properly anything something you need to read it in the original

You keep saying this and avoiding my challenge. Did the translators get it 100% wrong, Yes or No

you didn't respond to my point whatsoever.
a review
1. I stated that there was jewish literacy in the roman era.

W/o proof

2. you gave me an article that "proved there wasn't by quoting a "scholar"

That was Whoppers not me.

3. I showed you logically where the scholar made his mistake
4. you respond with this "That is fine and dandy for personal faith but the fact remains that many many scholars do not hold your sentiment and the archaeological records refute the claim of exodus."

They do refute the claims. If you have other archaeological evidence I will look at it.

so either you didn't understand what I said (which would be my fault because I didn't explain them properly) or you are just trying to deflect the fact that you don;t even know the ABCs of jewish history in the roman era.

Perhaps to prove your point you can elucidate instead of making baseless claims regarding my lack of history. I do not accept what I am simply told, I do my own research.

that wasn't the rock so I'll agree with you on this 100%.

Rock of Horeb

Mount Sinai is nearby Horeb no? If not tell us where it is or what is was. If it was moveable as you claimed earlier, the christians claim it to be a "type of christ" which puts both of your faiths in the same boat in that it is special pleading aka appeal to magic.

your knowledge of jewish history is on less then a first grade level if you could make this statement " The question of multiple exterminations seems to be undocumented." this ranks as one of the most ignorant things Ive ever read by some who claims to know Jewish history.

We discussed that and I said the model was flawed. It was made to illustrate a point of claims that bear no resemblance to reality, nothing more. You are overly sensitive to this and I did say that it did not take into account all possibilities. How much more of a disclaimer do you need?

I never thought this about you (but now that you introduced it things make more sense)

Why, do you think I cannot have a religious perspective/opinion and a political one that differs?

BTW FYI, South Africa and Israel were war allies in the 70's and 80's, where do you think we got our French origin mirage fighters from and the subsequent joint Cheetah modifications used both by the Israeli and SADF? We got them via Israel. Did you know that? That should put to bed any idea I hate Jews. I don't.

The written bible in judisim is thought to be like a map with out a map key.

How convenient. That means you can interpret it to mean anything you want. that pretty much is the same take the christians use, puts you once again in the exact same boat.

when your attacking things that any kindergardener knows that jewish tradition answer that would be yes

Really, how mature of you. Sometimes when you dig a hole for yourself, there comes a time when you should stop digging to not embarrass yourself. You are not bringing any valid arguments/evidence to the table and simply resorting to ad hom attacks. I am challenging the claims made and have yet to see ANYONE refute my challenges. Special pleading does not work in debates.

I know that that is why I'm responding to show everyone that you don't have the tools to respond.

You are doing a pretty poor job defending. You use a lot of words but say essentially nothing.

except the jewish version requires intellect, says you are missing key information and is based on the simple assumption that in order to disprove something completely you have to be able to read it in the original. Your "Holy Spirit" comparison just says you can't do it with out some supernatural force. You want to respond to us go study for a few years and come back.

I have enough studies under my belt to challenge/refute anything you have to offer, but as yet you have offered nothing but platitudes.

Your claim for intellect is found wanting by virtue of your posts which thus far had said very little to nothing. Perhaps you should get over yourself and actually engage in the discussion. I am willing to see I am proved wrong but what you think are points scored are in fact typical apologist's tactics of deflection and appeals to "always so" as pointed out numerous times and refuted by Whoppers.

except traditional Judaism claims that the written bible is only part of the word of god

Ok you are claiming extra biblical stuff that is supposed to support your POV. Why then is the Torah and the rest of the Jewish bible (aka OT by xians) seen as insufficient? Why has it not been revised? The oral Torah is akin to the oral tradition of the Catholics and BOTH are using it as some defacto "must be used to understand" apologetic.

Perhaps point me to the correct English translation of the Hebrew bible. It seems that Jews accept the headings of the xian bible in that if I say genesis, exodus, deuturonomy etc. you know what I am talking of, hence your appeals to something like an oral tradition would invalidate the Jewish bible and being able to withstand scrutiny and historical accuracy by someone like Whoppers and me.

please respond to my refutation of your jewish Roman illiteracy claim. because that is a central point to your key claim.

That is for Whoppers to address not me. He is the linguist. (see below)

the facts are for as long as we have real records majority of all male jews could read. and to assume that it was different before that with zero proof to the support that would be ludicrous.

±3500 years and every single male could read? That is a claim that requires proof NOT a cultural or an oral tradition.

(continued)
If you claim my challenge is based on literacy of the Jews, I do not recall making that inference.

Let us continue on that premise.

Perhaps your definition of literacy and mine differ. If one accepts you learn language like you do as a child before entering school as it is nowadays, then back then it is fair to assume that folk were fluent in their language even w/o schooling in the now traditional sense; that takes no rocket science to deduce. However if you claim every single male Jew say from the time of Abraham was literate in reading and writing, that requires proof.

This anyway plays into my assertions that the exodus event (if it happened) was a very small band of nomads and as such this would be par for the course in a small community. However 2M-6M (whichever figure is believed to be true) folk requires schools and not ones that were mobile as the folklore might suggest.

I could probably learn to recite the Torah and not know one word of Hebrew (were I younger) the same goes for the qu'ran in Arabic.

This of course leads into the next obvious question. IF you are skilled in the Torah in the original language, as I think you are claiming, barring some minor translation hiccups, you should be handing my (or anyone's) arse to them on a silver platter. This is not happening so I defer to my assertion that your "apparent literacy", in the original, is no more parrot recitation of the Torah.

Now on that juncture, I admit, I have no knowledge as I do not speak or purport to understand Hebrew.

Simply answer my Yes no question, I'll repeat it here;

Did the translators get it 100% wrong, Yes or No.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by NY Jew

thank you for proving to me you don't know hebrew.
Kofer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't really matter if he knew it or not, for knowledge of Hebrew is only important if your next point is entirely valid.
I was aware of your name-calling, as usual.
To be technical, since the Hebrew is related to the Arabic - then he was fully aware of what you were saying, as evidenced by his mentioning of the relationship.

Originally Posted by NY Jew

to properly anything something you need to read it in the original

Not sure what you're trying to say - "to properly [?] something, you need to read it in the original". Do you mean [comprehend] or [know]? If so - I would add that to FULLY understand something, a knowledge of the original language is required. However, with this said - there are many fine translations that, with the help of a translators note or two, can faithfully give an approximation of the original. If can never fully reach the original, but it can come very close in scope or meaning. With the advent of modern literature on the subject, the knowledge of the original language is no longer needed for the average person. A scholar needs to know it, of course.

As an additional note, the original language is a tricky thing. Many modern jews are fluent in modern Hebrew and apply its modern linguistic features to ancient biblical Hebrew - no matter what stage of development the language was in: this is not a good idea. It's fairly common (especially given that several consonants have lost their "soft" pronounciation, and retained only their "hard" quality - to name just one example) to see incorrect pronounciations, and from these pronounciations are derived various points of theological significance. The language has changed vastly since biblical Hebrew, and it changed enormously within the writing of the Bible. Further examples of changes in the language could be adduced, not to mention the need to supplement the Masoretic Text (MT) with other, older sources.

In the end - the observations on the Exodus and its number of participants does not stand or fall on Seeker's analysis (I don't meant that to insult, Seeker heh heh) - he is rightly building on the work of scholars fully trained in the language of the Torah, in addition to adding his own observations. I, for one, gave several citations of scholars who have worked on the issue - so even if Seeker is not fully fluent in biblical Hebrew, the work has already been done to a large degree by those who are fluent.

Originally Posted by NY Jew

you didn't respond to my point whatsoever.
a review
1. I stated that there was jewish literacy in the roman era.
2. you gave me an article that "proved there wasn't by quoting a "scholar"
3. I showed you logically where the scholar made his mistake
4. you respond with this "That is fine and dandy for personal faith but the fact remains that many many scholars do not hold your sentiment and the archaeological records refute the claim of exodus."

so either you didn't understand what I said (which would be my fault because I didn't explain them properly) or you are just trying to deflect the fact that you don;t even know the ABCs of jewish history in the roman era.

1. - You originally said that there was a high literacy rate of jews in the Roman era. Now you're saying that "there was jewish literacy in the roman era". The two statements are different. Which one is it?
2. - The citations (there were multiple ones) were not meant to show that there was not "jewish literacy in the roman era" -they were meant to show that there was not a high level of jewish literacy in the roman era. Big difference.
3. - Showing one mistake from one scholar (and I don't think it's a mistake, as he is fully aware of his approach) does not invalidate the rest of his work, nor does it invalidate the other citations given. If such a thing were possible, then one mistake in anything would invalidate the whole source. You had better hope this is not so, for this would seriously endanger the validity of the Torah - for instance. Where did you get the information to quote him in an attempt to disprove him? Have you read the entire work?

As to the ABCs of Jewish Roman history - as I said above, there are those experts who are familiar with Jewish history under the Romans. I cited just a few - there are many more. To the contrary, you have unfortunately not cited any of your own experts or evidence.

Originally Posted by NY Jew

that wasn't the rock so I'll agree with you on this 100%.



your knowledge of jewish history is on less then a first grade level if you could make this statement " The question of multiple exterminations seems to be undocumented." this ranks as one of the most ignorant things Ive ever read by some who claims to know Jewish history.



I never thought this about you (but now that you introduced it things make more sense)



The written bible in judisim is thought to be like a map with out a map key.



when your attacking things that any kindergardener knows that jewish tradition answer that would be yes


I know that that is why I'm responding to show everyone that you don't have the tools to respond.


except the jewish version requires intellect, says you are missing key information and is based on the simple assumption that in order to disprove something completely you have to be able to read it in the original. Your "Holy Spirit" comparison just says you can't do it with out some supernatural force. You want to respond to us go study for a few years and come back.


except traditional Judaism claims that the written bible is only part of the word of god


please respond to my refutation of your jewish Roman illiteracy claim. because that is a central point to your key claim.

the facts are for as long as we have real records majority of all male jews could read. and to assume that it was different before that with zero proof to the support that would be ludicrous.

The last point is easily seen to be false from the multiple citations (in addition to the vast literature on the subject) given concerning jewish literacy rates - why do you forget this and keep saying "zero proof"? Plenty of "proof" has been given (if a concrete answer can really be reached), and there is no shame in admitting this. What does it matter if experts be correct in this matter? Do I need to give some actual biblical references that highlight the level of illiteracy and knowledge of Hebrew? One could begin with Ezra, for example, and the reading of the scroll to the people, and the need to translate it into Aramaic to be read aloud to the people. This isn't to say that this implies illiteracy because it was read outloud, but it shows that a knowledge of Hebrew was definately not a common thing by that time. The scribes knew it, for they had the time and financial resources to be trained in such an undertaking - but the common people did not. Your average farmer was not spending hours per day learning Hebrew....

A lot of the above is nothing more than further insult, and the many things I mentioned in my previous post concerning sectarian claims of having the only key to a text - or in other words, the traditio claims to have the full right of interpreting the traditum. Come on, NY Jew - cut back on the slurs. As far as I can tell, nobody has slurred you in this thread.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

This has been such a fascinating discussion with you two. I don't think I've ever participated in just such a discussion in my life. There's so much I've learned so far, and I really appreciate the dialog. When I get a bit snarky with you two, it's not out of maliciousness. I think I've avoided direct insults (but perhaps the indirect kind I'm adept at - really, I'm sorry for that. ) I'd like to keep this discussion going. And keep it above the line.

For what it's worth, I think your viewpoints are not unreasonable. They are not what I believe, obviously, but I think a more middle of the road kind of person would find your viewpoints much much more palatable than mine.

I hope I can bring something of value to those following this thread. If I may repeat one of my mantras here at this site, is that my views on religion are not meant for non-Jews. I have nothing to convince either of you of. You're clearly better off thinking what you think as opposed to what I think. It's only Jews who I'd like my views on religion to ring a bell with here. Although I do find it enjoyable just to state where I stand, and then see the range of responses. I don't do that to be a troll - my opinion are for real. But I'm generally shocked and amazed when the anti-semites come out of thr wood works. Even more amazed when somebody asks me why Jews don't believe in "he who must not be named." Am I a meglomaniac for thinking my coming to this site several weeks ago has livened the joint? Of course I can't answer that, as I wasn't here before myself to compare.

Well said, flipflop. I do appreciate your honesty in this area. Do not think that I'm hostile to your tradition, please. I know you don't think too highly of James Kugel, but I quoted him for a reason - not to merely prove my point (even if I had quoted him just for this purpose, then this is perfectly acceptable: that is why we quote other people. It is the constraints of time and space that prevent me from presenting all sides of the coin), but to show that he approaches the issue from both sides of said coin. Maybe that wasn't clear, but he certainly makes that clear in his book. As a jew coming from his tradition, and a modern scholar, he is trapped in the situation you describe earlier: one side pulls him while the other pulls him. Is there any way to mix the two? He specifically says he does not wish to choose one "side" over the other (I think this was in one of his quotes), and that there really is no ultimate way of deciding such a question. He feels this way because in today's age, there is way of avoiding many of the questions and conclusions that modern scholarship has brought up; one cannot simply hide ones head in the sand, and hope that their tradition can just ignore the conclusions.

He does spend the bulk of his work (and much of his previous research that has led up to this book, among others) investigating the Bible from two perspectives: traditional interpretations of scripture and scholarly interpretations of scripture. He gives them equal time in many ways, and examines them both. He does not give way to modern scholarship simply because he is a scholar, just as he does not give way to tradtional interpretations simply because he is traditional. In other words - he is not interested in settling the matter, or even of concluding that one is right and the other is wrong; he is more interested in examining how the Bible has been interpreted over the years - that is all. What conclusions can be drawn are not as drastic as you may think.

This moderate view (and it is very moderate) is why I chose Kugel, and why I frequently quote him when these issues pop up: he is not hostile to tradition and is able of being very tactful (after all, he is a religious jew) while examining the matter. I think you will still feel that his motivations are "scholarly" in this area, but I would really refrain from painting him with such a brush. I highly recomnend the work to anyone who wants a moderate, non-offensive, tactful and respectful examination of how the Bible has been interpreted over the ages. You might be surprised at many of his conclusions concerning both scholarship and tradition.


The unfortunate thing is that I feel like him in certain areas - I do not think that belief must set up its camp against scholarship. They are both compatible to a degree, and the latter can help illuminate issues that tradition has been wrestling with. The key to incorporating scholarship is to be moderate with it. I try to refrain from reaching extreme ends and concluding "well, that proves there isn't so-and-so" when I work with it. That is taking things too far, I think. I think the popularity of Bart Ehrman (for one example) has been a little hurtful to scholarship, lately. His popular books are tinged with quite a bit of anti-religiosity (though his scholarly works are not, interestingly enough - a good view of the field and how it works) and his book God's Problem was full-blown against it. This gave a wrong picture of scholars generally - many of them are religious, have retained their religious beliefs (though some have had to be modified, admittedly) and entered the field because of their love of God in the first place.

Anwyays - I'm not a Kugel groupy, just stating why I quoted from him and why he is not the scholarly adversary you may think he is. Flipflop, what would be intensely interesting (and in line with the subject of the thread) would be to read some rabbinic statements concerning the number of jews who fled Egypt. If you want to contribute from your tradition, that might be a very enlightening approach. Perhaps later I will quote some that I'm aware of, but I'm all out of time now.