Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew!

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

It is pretty simple. Moshe died, and there was no other prophet like him who arose. Joshua could not compare to Moshe. It may perplex you, but it really makes sense if you understand the Hebrew which I provided you with.

If you don't see a problem with any of it then ok, that's your view, the fact that you even used a different tense to that of the translation clarifies to me that it is not just me that sees something wrong.


[QUOTE=rav;623090]Sure.

Here are the modern day biblical translations of this:

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem, and his mother's name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
(2 Kings 24:8)

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did that which was evil in the eyes of the L-rd.
(2 Chronicles 36:9)

Ok, so that's what Jews would agree too? Interesting.

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

So is this a contradiction? Not at all. I remember the Gemora says somewhere something like this I believe: Saying he was 8 years old means it was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar's rule which it was, it is a figure of speech used sometimes in Hebrew unable to be translated correctly into English since the languages are so different.

So he was not 8 years old, but he was 18 but he was put onto the throne 8 years into Nebuchadnezzar's rule.

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

One example:

Imagine if a book translated from English to Hebrew said: “It is raining cats and dogs”. What would the Hebrew speakers say? They do not know of such a saying, since it is non-existent in Hebrew.

יורד גשם חתולים וכלבים

The above means “it is raining cats and dogs”

A native English speaker would say “oh, it was raining heavily”.

An Israeli would say the story meant to say it was literally raining animals, if you get the point I am trying to make.

I can understand this point, for example, would be in english someone saying 'Hit the road' and people understanding that to mean 'time to go' but if someone from a different culture reads this then they would not understand it.

So I will ask, which phrase from the hebrew in the above is not to be taken literaly? The Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king or the Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king?

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

An alternative explanantion stated somewhere was: It is quite possible that Jehoiakim actually put his son, Jehoiachin, on the throne at the beginning of his reign because he realized that his throne was not stable and was dependent on other, stronger than he was, foreign rulers. Thus, even though Jehoiachin did not exercise any royal authority while his father, Jehoiakim, was alive, it is considered of him as if he was the king.

Nebuchadnezzar became king in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, who reigned for 11 years. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was in the 8th year of his reign when Jehoiachin ascended to the throne.

If he was put on the throne but did not excresize his rights and thats an explanation then its still wrong, in my humble view.

As for the the Nebuchadnezzar, I will look into that, though i do have reservations, since then thats not something I have ever seen before, where as translators, at least one, would write that. Thanks for the explanations though, gets me thinking


[QUOTE=rav;623090]Well who else other than the Jews were there that day? Were there outside sources other than Islam which told of that ride of your prophet on that winged animal?

Then we will agree that both can be fabricated and a certain amount of credability is needed and both of the sources should be studied and see if they can stand scrutinisation.

[QUOTE=rav;623090]Only the towns people of certain cities said the nazi's bombed them and the residents were the only witneses. How do we know they were not all conspiring? Do you think 3 million could do that?

I don't see how nazis have anything to do with this, sorry I have misunderstood I think.

Furthermore, it is not about whether 3 million people are lying, that is something you don't seem to have grasped of what I am saying.

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

Perhaps one group may have been duped by charlatans, believing this "fairy tale of Sinai". But the story is universal, spread out among peoples living in every corner of the Earth, and consistent with each other. Jews living in Ethiopia for thousands of years, and the Jews of Yemen, separated from the main body of Jews for over 2500 years, have remarkably preserved the Torah intact during the millennia of dispersion. Their reports are entirely consistent with those of Jews everywhere else.

Do you believe in other 'public' myths?

Jesus fed thousands with small amount of food in a miracle, is it possible that all those thousands of people have all lied or agreed to convey the same lie? So let me ask, do you believe in that Miracle of Jesus? Or that Jesus appeared resurrected to 500 people, do you believe all those were lying too?

Whilst I do agree that over a short period of years it would be highly unlikely that a fabrication of such multitude could occour, but over time, when people have passed away and gone, such stories of old can be formulated and inserted.

Thank you for your time and great discussion

Eesa.

I don't know if any non-Muslims had an interest in preserving hadiths from the Prophet (sall Allahu 'aleyhi wa sallam). But since you asked about the night journey of the Prophet (sall Allahu 'aleyhi wa sallam) to Jerusalem and if non-Islamic sources confirm it, there were non-Muslims that confirmed that his story was true (by asking for proof and receiving it).

What was the proof?

It doesn't have to be the voice of God that all of these witnesses here. It can be a miracle, which would also convince people.

But it was the voice of G-d that convinced and in reality began organized Judaism, and made it a religion from a people.

I can understand this point, for example, would be in english someone saying 'Hit the road' and people understanding that to mean 'time to go' but if someone from a different culture reads this then they would not understand it.

So I will ask, which phrase from the hebrew in the above is not to be taken literaly? The Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king or the Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king?

Eight since it makes sense when put next to how long his rule was, when Nebachanezar conquered and his rule ect.

Do you believe in other 'public' myths?

Jesus fed thousands with small amount of food in a miracle, is it possible that all those thousands of people have all lied or agreed to convey the same lie? So let me ask, do you believe in that Miracle of Jesus? Or that Jesus appeared resurrected to 500 people, do you believe all those were lying too?

Whilst I do agree that over a short period of years it would be highly unlikely that a fabrication of such multitude could occour, but over time, when people have passed away and gone, such stories of old can be formulated and inserted.

Thank you for your time and great discussion

It is admitted by Christians these stories were written down hundred of years after Jesus died is this not true?

Then we will agree that both can be fabricated and a certain amount of credability is needed and both of the sources should be studied and see if they can stand scrutinisation.

Judaism does not really care or need facts however. If all the fact were available and nothing was put on belief and sacrifice for something you believe instead of what you know then there would be no real point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Sorry to interrupt your debate, but when you make a point and try to use an illustration from my faith wherein you make a claim that I do not believe to be true, I must speak up.

While there are some Christians who would claim later dates for the writiing of the Gospels, these are the same people who would hold that Moses never wrote any of the Torah. If you choose to believe them go right ahead, but I believe that Moses wrote the Torah, and I believe that all of the Gospels telling of Jesus' life were written before the passing of the first generation of Christians, while there were still living plenty of persons who had been witnesses to Jesus' life, heard, his teachings, and even seen him following the resurrection.

My fault. I actually, did not know because I did some research and opinions say 30 years. Please forgive me.

is there ANY evidence, outside of the Torah and Talmud whatsoever that the Torah was in existance before the Babylonian exile?

Start with Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" which was written in the mid-first century CE. And also "The Wars of the Jews" also written by Josephus. Josephus lived from 37 CE to about 100 CE.





And "Against Apion":

As to the care of writing down the records from the earliest antiquity among the Egyptians and Babylonians; that the priests were intrusted therewith, and employed a philosophical concern about it; that they were the Chaldean priests that did so among the Babylonians; and that the Phoenicians, who were mingled among the Greeks, did especially make use of their letters, both for the common affairs of life, and for the delivering down the history of common transactions, I think I may omit any proof, because all men allow it so to be. But now as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records, (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,) and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, our history will be so written hereafter; - I shall endeavor briefly to inform you.

8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to G-d, and precepts for the conduct of human life. . .

For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them. . .

As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are visible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the truest piety in the world. They do not make men hate one another, but encourage people to communicate what they have to one another freely; they are enemies to injustice, they take care of righteousness, they banish idleness and expensive living, and instruct men to be content with what they have, and to be laborious in their calling; they forbid men to make war from a desire of getting more, but make men courageous in defending the laws; they are inexorable in punishing malefactors; they admit no sophistry of words, but are always established by actions themselves, which actions we ever propose as surer demonstrations than what is contained in writing only: on which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws? and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and this so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to become injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to contemn death when we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical occupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things and all ways are satisfied that G-d is the inspector and governor of our actions.

We have an unbroken chain of transmission going back to Moses -- and Being Jewish has a wonderful article on how you can tell (by going back in history) that it couldn't have been "faked"). This is just a snipped from that article.

We will work backwards in time. Let's first prove that the Bible is two thousand years old, and work backwards from there.

1,800 Years Ago
The Chrstians

I think there is little question that 1,800 years ago the Torah already existed. The Chrstians have been using their confused mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah. So the Torah is certainly already in existence for about 1,800 years.

2,000 Years Ago
Josephus and Philo

But it certainly existed before then as well. Josephus lived almost two thousand years ago, around the first century C.E., and wrote his works probably around 75 C.E. Josephus mentions the Torah numerous times, and clearly refers to it as something that had been around a long time. In his work called Contra Apion, he writes:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty-four books, which contain the records of all things past; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. (Book 1, Chapter 1, Number

There you have a clear reference to the Books of the Bible, and explicit mention of the Five Books of Moses. This is just one reference of many. Josephus mentions the Torah throughout many of his works. (See, for example, Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:3 and 2:16:5.)

Josephus is very clear that by his time there already existed a book of Laws written by Moses, and that it tells of the stories that Josephus himself tells in his Antiquities.

But was Josephus speaking of something new, or something that was already very old? Josephus was speaking of something that was already considered very old in his time. How do I know? Because he says so. In Contra Apion, Josephus writes that our Sacred Books are very old, and he asserts that no one has ever added to them or changed them in all the years since they were created.

...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willing to die for them. It is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theaters, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account [i.e., for their own books].... (1:1:

So it is quite clear that the Jews had these books, and believed in them, long before Josephus, who lived almost two thousand years ago. The Jews of his time, almost 2,000 years ago, already had all the Written Torah we have today, and believed them to be the originals, just as we believe today.

Let's go back a little further. Philo (around 20 B.C.E. to around 50 C.E.) also talks about the Books of the Torah, in his work The Life of Moses (II:288-91). He also says that the books of the Torah are very old.

The writings of Josephus and Philo both prove that the Written Torah was already composed by the first century of the Common Era.

2,200 Years Ago
The Septuagint, Sadducees, and Ben Sira

Let's go back a little more. The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Torah first written by Rabbis and later changed dozens of times by numerous people), is claimed by the Gentiles to date back to 275 B.C.E. (Our Tradition dates it a bit later, at 245 B.C.E., according to Rabbi Fendel, in Legacy of Sinai, page 136.) So the Written Torah already existed at that time.

Also around that time, the emergence of the Sadducee and Boethusian sects took place. The Sadducees took as their platform the statement that they believed only in the Written Torah, and rejected the Oral Torah. Evidently, at that time both the Written Law and the Oral Law already existed.

So now we know that the Torah already existed by around 275 or so B.C.E. That's 2,275 years ago, as I write this.

Let's go back a little more. Ben Sira (circa 400 B.C.E.) also mentions the Books of Torah, in the same number and names that we have them today. So the Tanach existed then as well, around 2,400 years ago.

2,500 Years Ago
The Samaritans, and the Ten Tribes

We can go yet further back. The Samaritans learned the Torah from the Ten Tribes sometime around 550 B.C.E. So, by then the Chumash and Joshua were already written. Some of the Kohanim of the Ten Tribes taught it to them. Any time after that, the Samaritans would not have accepted the Torah from the people of Judah, because of the Samaritans' hatred for them. So, since both the Jews and the Samaritans have the Chumash, we know that the Chumash had to have been written some time before 550 B.C.E., before the two groups stopped having contact with each other.

This also proves that the Torah could not have been written during the time of the two kingdoms. Since the Ten Tribes taught the Chumash to the Samaritans, that means the Ten Tribes had to have had the Chumash before they split off from the other two Tribes. During all the time that they were split, neither kingdom would never have taken Torah from the other.

Yet the later Books, written by Prophets among the two Tribes in Judah show numerous examples of how the Ten Tribes kept the Laws of the Torah (with occasional lapses), and that they had the Torah (see, for example, I Kings 21:13; II Kings 4:23, 7:3; Hosea 4:6; 8:1, 8:12; Amos 8:5, et. al.).

So, during the time of King Solomon, before the breakup of the nation into two kingdoms, the Chumash must have already existed. But they must have already existed earlier, or the Ten Tribes would never have accepted them. They took them because before they broke off these Books had already been fully accepted by all Israel.

2,800 Years Ago
King David

Could the Torah have been written during the time of King Solomon, or during the reign of his father, King David? Definitely not.

Consider what the Torah says about the nations of Moab.

The Torah (Deut. 23:4-7) says that a man from the nation of Moab may never marry a Jewish woman, even if he converts to Judaism. Even the descendant of a convert from Moab may never marry a Jewish woman. This was because of the way they treated us when we passed near their land on the way to the Land of Israel. They did not come forward to offer us bread and water, as was their custom. The women of Moab, however, after conversion to Judaism, are not forbidden to marry a Jewish man, because it was not the custom of the Moabite women to meet travelers with bread and water, and also because they had no connection with the attempt to curse Israel.

ALSO:

Gabriel Barkay found rolled up silver scrolls that -- when studied -- contained verses from Numbers, and from Deuteronomy. These date to the 7th century BCE, well before the Babylonian Exile. It shows that not only did Numbers and Deuteronomy exist in the 7th century, but they were circulated together. This is significantly older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which already speak to the validity and meticulous passing down of the Torah to today.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

is there ANY evidence, outside of the Torah and Talmud whatsoever that the Torah was in existance before the Babylonian exile?

May a non-Jew give an answer?

There is one piece of very conclusive evidence that the Torah was written before the exile found in the writings of the prophets. Parts of Daniel are written in the language of Babylonian Aramaic. Why? Because those parts were written either during or shortly the Babylonian exile.

Point being, if the Torah was written either during or after the exile it would show signs of use of this Babylonian Aramaic like Daniel does.


But what does it show instead? There are places within the Torah that show knowledge of life in Egypt that would have had to have been obtained by one living in Egypt, as the time of the people of Israel living in Egypt was hundreds of years before the Babylonian Exile this information would have been lost should the writing of it had waited till then or later. And finally there are some Sumarian clay tablets that have been discovered that mention both Abraham and his father Haran in the region identified as ancient Haran, thus providing substantiation to what is written in the Torah about Abaraham and Haran.

format_quote Originally Posted by rav

My fault. I actually, did not know because I did some research and opinions say 30 years. Please forgive me.



Start with Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" which was written in the mid-first century CE. And also "The Wars of the Jews" also written by Josephus. Josephus lived from 37 CE to about 100 CE.





And "Against Apion":

As to the care of writing down the records from the earliest antiquity among the Egyptians and Babylonians; that the priests were intrusted therewith, and employed a philosophical concern about it; that they were the Chaldean priests that did so among the Babylonians; and that the Phoenicians, who were mingled among the Greeks, did especially make use of their letters, both for the common affairs of life, and for the delivering down the history of common transactions, I think I may omit any proof, because all men allow it so to be. But now as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records, (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,) and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, our history will be so written hereafter; - I shall endeavor briefly to inform you.

8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to G-d, and precepts for the conduct of human life. . .

For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them. . .

As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are visible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the truest piety in the world. They do not make men hate one another, but encourage people to communicate what they have to one another freely; they are enemies to injustice, they take care of righteousness, they banish idleness and expensive living, and instruct men to be content with what they have, and to be laborious in their calling; they forbid men to make war from a desire of getting more, but make men courageous in defending the laws; they are inexorable in punishing malefactors; they admit no sophistry of words, but are always established by actions themselves, which actions we ever propose as surer demonstrations than what is contained in writing only: on which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws? and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and this so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to become injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to contemn death when we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical occupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things and all ways are satisfied that G-d is the inspector and governor of our actions.

We have an unbroken chain of transmission going back to Moses -- and Being Jewish has a wonderful article on how you can tell (by going back in history) that it couldn't have been "faked"). This is just a snipped from that article.

We will work backwards in time. Let's first prove that the Bible is two thousand years old, and work backwards from there.

1,800 Years Ago
The Chrstians

I think there is little question that 1,800 years ago the Torah already existed. The Chrstians have been using their confused mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah. So the Torah is certainly already in existence for about 1,800 years.

2,000 Years Ago
Josephus and Philo

But it certainly existed before then as well. Josephus lived almost two thousand years ago, around the first century C.E., and wrote his works probably around 75 C.E. Josephus mentions the Torah numerous times, and clearly refers to it as something that had been around a long time. In his work called Contra Apion, he writes:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty-four books, which contain the records of all things past; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. (Book 1, Chapter 1, Number

There you have a clear reference to the Books of the Bible, and explicit mention of the Five Books of Moses. This is just one reference of many. Josephus mentions the Torah throughout many of his works. (See, for example, Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:3 and 2:16:5.)

Josephus is very clear that by his time there already existed a book of Laws written by Moses, and that it tells of the stories that Josephus himself tells in his Antiquities.

But was Josephus speaking of something new, or something that was already very old? Josephus was speaking of something that was already considered very old in his time. How do I know? Because he says so. In Contra Apion, Josephus writes that our Sacred Books are very old, and he asserts that no one has ever added to them or changed them in all the years since they were created.

...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willing to die for them. It is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theaters, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account [i.e., for their own books].... (1:1:

So it is quite clear that the Jews had these books, and believed in them, long before Josephus, who lived almost two thousand years ago. The Jews of his time, almost 2,000 years ago, already had all the Written Torah we have today, and believed them to be the originals, just as we believe today.

Let's go back a little further. Philo (around 20 B.C.E. to around 50 C.E.) also talks about the Books of the Torah, in his work The Life of Moses (II:288-91). He also says that the books of the Torah are very old.

The writings of Josephus and Philo both prove that the Written Torah was already composed by the first century of the Common Era.

2,200 Years Ago
The Septuagint, Sadducees, and Ben Sira

Let's go back a little more. The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Torah first written by Rabbis and later changed dozens of times by numerous people), is claimed by the Gentiles to date back to 275 B.C.E. (Our Tradition dates it a bit later, at 245 B.C.E., according to Rabbi Fendel, in Legacy of Sinai, page 136.) So the Written Torah already existed at that time.

Also around that time, the emergence of the Sadducee and Boethusian sects took place. The Sadducees took as their platform the statement that they believed only in the Written Torah, and rejected the Oral Torah. Evidently, at that time both the Written Law and the Oral Law already existed.

So now we know that the Torah already existed by around 275 or so B.C.E. That's 2,275 years ago, as I write this.

Let's go back a little more. Ben Sira (circa 400 B.C.E.) also mentions the Books of Torah, in the same number and names that we have them today. So the Tanach existed then as well, around 2,400 years ago.

2,500 Years Ago



]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Shalom rav [& Greeting of Peace to his new assistant, Gene! ]

i hope that you're both doing well on this frozen January morning!

i'm under the gun for pre-dawn prayers, so a quick reply:

Could the Torah have been written during the time of King Solomon, or during the reign of his father, King David? Definitely not.

Consider what the Torah says about the nations of Moab.

The Torah (Deut. 23:4-7) says that a man from the nation of Moab may never marry a Jewish woman, even if he converts to Judaism. Even the descendant of a convert from Moab may never marry a Jewish woman. This was because of the way they treated us when we passed near their land on the way to the Land of Israel. They did not come forward to offer us bread and water, as was their custom. The women of Moab, however, after conversion to Judaism, are not forbidden to marry a Jewish man, because it was not the custom of the Moabite women to meet travelers with bread and water, and also because they had no connection with the attempt to curse Israel.

ALSO:

i have no idea how this impacts the discussion. AT ALL...

perhaps you could elucidate.

[COLOR=yellow]Gabriel Barkay found rolled up silver scrolls that -- when studied -- contained verses from Numbers, and from Deuteronomy. These date to the 7th century BCE, well before the Babylonian Exile. It shows that not only did Numbers and Deuteronomy exist in the 7th century, but they were circulated together. This is significantly older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which already speak to the validity and meticulous passing down of the Torah to today.
[/COLOR

i'm not aware of any Gabriel Barrkley, or how a few verses might offer evidence to anything other than a few verses, perhaps you could enlighten me.

the dead sea scrolls go back no more than 350BCE, so i don't see how those help...

The Samaritans, and the Ten Tribes[/INDENT]

We can go yet further back. The Samaritans learned the Torah from the Ten Tribes sometime around 550 B.C.E. So, by then the Chumash and Joshua were already written. Some of the Kohanim of the Ten Tribes taught it to them. Any time after that, the Samaritans would not have accepted the Torah from the people of Judah, because of the Samaritans' hatred for them. So, since both the Jews and the Samaritans have the Chumash, we know that the Chumash had to have been written some time before 550 B.C.E., before the two groups stopped having contact with each other.

This also proves that the Torah could not have been written during the time of the two kingdoms. Since the Ten Tribes taught the Chumash to the Samaritans, that means the Ten Tribes had to have had the Chumash before they split off from the other two Tribes. During all the time that they were split, neither kingdom would never have taken Torah from the other.

Yet the later Books, written by Prophets among the two Tribes in Judah show numerous examples of how the Ten Tribes kept the Laws of the Torah (with occasional lapses), and that they had the Torah (see, for example, I Kings 21:13; II Kings 4:23, 7:3; Hosea 4:6; 8:1, 8:12; Amos 8:5, et. al.).

So, during the time of King Solomon, before the breakup of the nation into two kingdoms, the Chumash must have already existed. But they must have already existed earlier, or the Ten Tribes would never have accepted them. They took them because before they broke off these Books had already been fully accepted by all Israel.

[INDENT]2,800 Years Ago
King David

THAT is actually new to me. any proof of it? i did peruse the site for a bit, but when he stated that the Patriarchs were Jewish instead of Muslim, it kind of lost some credibillity...

before responding to Josephus, first give me your opinion of Josephus.

i'll get to the linguistic comment by Gene later, Insha' Allah! but let me first ask if you believe that differences in linguistics is a viable means of determining the date or origin of writings.

Peace,



Yusuf

I'm not rav but I will andwer your questions:

i'm not aware of any Gabriel Barrkley, or how a few verses might offer evidence to anything other than a few verses, perhaps you could enlighten me.

the dead sea scrolls go back no more than 350BCE, so i don't see how those help...

The "Silver Scrolls" are scrolls that contain verses from Numbers and Deut. Therefore, this proves the two books were in existance and were together as the Torah in that time period before the exile.

before responding to Josephus, first give me your opinion of Josephus.

An opinion? Is there a conteversey I am not aware of?

i'll get to the linguistic comment by Gene later, Insha' Allah! but let me first ask if you believe that differences in linguistics is a viable means of determining the date or origin of writings.

I don't think so, but maybe rav has another opinion, so I won't answer.

THAT is actually new to me. any proof of it? i did peruse the site for a bit, but when he stated that the Patriarchs were Jewish instead of Muslim, it kind of lost some credibillity...

Wait, the only sources and people whom refer to the patriacrchs as Muslims are Islamic sources. Som if your asking for an "Islamic source" on this subject than I think we should not discuss anything because that is ridiculous.

Or that Jesus appeared resurrected to 500 people, do you believe all those were lying too?

Whilst I do agree that over a short period of years it would be highly unlikely that a fabrication of such multitude could occour, but over time, when people have passed away and gone, such stories of old can be formulated and inserted.

Thank you for your time and great discussion

Eesa.

Paul claims that Jesus was seen, soon after his alleged resurrection, by "the twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:5). The term, "the twelve," refers to the inner- circle of Jesus' closest disciples. The respective later versions of the alleged postresurrection encounter between Jesus and his innermost circle of disciples found in the Gospels and the Book of Acts are careful to record that due to Judas' defection there were only eleven disciples at that time.

Matthew alleges that "the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus designated. And when they saw him, they worshipped; but doubted" (Matthew 28:17); Mark maintains that "afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining" (Mark 16:14); Luke states that "they arose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them" (Luke 24:33). John, alone, does not give a precise number for those disciples left after Judas' defection but does refer to "Thomas, one of the twelve" (John 20:24). Here "the twelve" simply indicates that Thomas was one of the original twelve. Acts 1:13 lists eleven disciples to which was added Matthias in order to make up the full quorum (Acts 1:26). It is seen from Acts 1:12-26 that Matthias was not appointed to be a member of the apostolic inner-circle until sometime after their alleged group encounter with a resurrected Jesus. Whether referred to as "the twelve" or as the deficient "the eleven" they are a cohesive group separate from those who were with them. However, the term "the twelve" apparently did not become institutionalized, so that when deficient of that number the group did not bare that name.

Paul does not mention either the defection of Judas or the appointment of Matthias. He does refer to the inner-circle of "the twelve" experiencing a postresurrection appearance at a time when the Gospels and Acts respectively maintained there were only eleven. There is no reason to believe that Paul institutionalized the term "the twelve" and was actually referring to "the eleven." In addition, it is possible that Paul never heard of any defection by Judas or his replacement by Matthias because these incidents never happened. They may be legends developed within the church during the interval between Paul's writing to the Corinthians and the authorship of the Gospels and Acts. As it stands, Paul's use of the term "the twelve" to describe a postresurrection appearance to the inner-circle disciples cannot be considered trustworthy. At a time when the inner-circle of disciples precisely numbered eleven to call them "the twelve" places in doubt, either the reliability of Paul's sources concerning the disciples or the story of Judas' defection.

http://jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq095.html


Some Christians maintain that hallucinations or visions cannot explain the supposed post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. They claim that some five hundred people, at one time, cannot be deluded with the same vision. It is true that it is unlikely that two or more people would have the same hallucination, not to mention eleven or even five hundred. The question is, however, if the claims made are true to begin with.

Paul, writing about twenty-five years after the crucifixion contends, without giving a geographic location, that "upwards of five hundred brethren" had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus and that many of them were still alive at the time of his writing (1Corinthians 15:6). No information is provided to indicate whether this experience was a visionary revelation or an actual appearance in the flesh. Moreover, Paul does not tell us whether he was among the five hundred, or whether he had heard the story from one of them, or whether it was merely a story that was circulating among certain Christians. This alleged postresurrection appearance is conspicuously omitted in both the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Had the Corinthians wanted to verify Paul's statement, it would have been, as Paul must have known, virtually impossible for them to do so, considering the primitive means of communication available in those days. Neither did he mention by name any of the five hundred for possible contact by the Corinthians, had they wanted to seek verification. Who experienced this alleged postresurrection appearance, and when and where this supposedly took place is not stated. The whole incident was either an unverifiable rumor utilized by Paul or simply the result of his overzealous missionary activity.

http://jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq096.html