This is an excellent piece. It’s very well written and is full of content.
But, even more than that, I admire your courage. It takes a lot of guts to do what you did. You are mechazek us all.
I wish you luck on your journey.
Most of what you say is not true. Hebrew writing was certainly in the 13th century BCE. This was not known at first but was shortly proven in the early part of the last century. Also as an example of getting things correctly on the time period. The patriarchs do not have horses even from Egypt but donkeys and camels were domesticated in the days of the patriarchs.
"Occamgs razor and simple logic dictate therefore that these claims be seen as not only not
provable, but also false."
This shows your bias. In archaeology it takes one discovery to show something and much has been shown. You by contrast declare it not provable from the start. Further it is not true that pointing out disagreements between experts is not a path to undermine DH because DH is still believed in by experts. On the contrary if an argument is not backing DH or anything then it is evidence against as first come arguments and then the theory.
The Hittites were not believed in despite the Bible saying they were there and it was proven that they sure existed. Denying Biblical history apriori is revisionist and stunting to historical research.
David,
I commend your courage and intellectual honesty.
Matters touching on the eternal, and on an ancient people's traditions and identity, are, of course, heavy with meaning--and separating oneself from the herd often comes at the price of some existential trepidation, at least. And, in your case, with such a long family history of religious leadership, it must have been even more difficult.
Yet not separating oneself--when one's best thinking and conscience urges one to do so--has costs, too; costs that may be, in both moral and psychological terms, much higher. And heroism is not always on the side of the flag.
We cannot rule out the possiblity that one's reasons and one's arguments may be shown by the advances of the future to be less than perfectly correct, but one's heart and one's intent, can be admirable today.
As a fellow ordained rabbi (though I haven't gone on to serve in that role vocationally) who walked away from Orthodoxy, and from religion overall, some years back, I welcome you to the small, yet perhaps growing, ranks of the ex-Orthodox. May your journey be free of unnecessary suffering, and rich with enlightenment and joy.
I welcome you to the small, yet perhaps growing, ranks of the ex-Orthodox.
i certainly hope the two of you become a trend setter. People leaving orthodoxy by the droves has happened before in history. Who knows? Maybe it will happen again?
Strange.
His writing contains a serious sense of arrogance. I dont say this because I perceive this in all skeptics. I dont. Not in the author of this blog.
However, this post reeks of arrogance and absolutism in cases where it isnt warranted. Almost a fundamentalism of a kind. Yick.
LF, I'm confused. I didn't read the whole post, but is LF Blog where R. Gruber opened up to the world?
"LF, I'm confused. I didn't read the whole post, but is LF Blog where R. Gruber opened up to the world?
BaalHabos"
Before was LF. Now was Gruber.
LF, I'm confused.
at least you aren't as confused as gh
I didn't read the whole post,
you should. it's great.
but is LF Blog where R. Gruber opened up to the world?
he's no longer frum and that's already public. i just thought the readership of the blog would enjoy the letter.
Yes, I just read the post. It's kind of odd, giving those details about Language, etc. There's so much detail to skepticism, why pick select elements to portray. But I digress.
This is fascinating. When did this happen? How old is he? Married? Are you sure this is true? I did a search on him and got no hits. I'm skeptical.
Are you sure this is true?
100%. I have it confirmed from several independent sources.
Yes, I just read the post. It's kind of odd, giving those details about Language, etc. There's so much detail to skepticism, why pick select elements to portray.
i think he's focusing on the details that relate specificly to the historicity of the exodus cause that's the ikkar zach of yahadus. sure, you can blow up gen 1 - 11 but it doesn't relate as directly to yahadus as blowing up exodus does.
http://www.lookstein.org/
resourc..._revolution.pdf
Although I believe that archeology presents serious challenges to the Orthodox party line, your post implies that the verdict is in and the jury has decided in favor of the skeptic. It is true that the pendulum has swung away from the maximalists of the 1800s whose raison d'etre was to prove the veracity of the Bible. But you imply that minimalists such as Finkelstein have the last word and the debate is essentially over. One has only to read Kitchen, Hoffmeier, et al, to know that it isn't so cut and dried and that many of these issues are still open to debate. (Indeed there are even historians such as David Rohl - who I believe is a secular Jew - who question the entire chronology upon which many of the minimalist's objections are based. Admittedly he has few scholarly supporters.)
But I really wanted to question your statement that a "hostile and indifferent universe can and should be celebrated." Certainly a humanist can celebrate the incredible accomplishments of wo/man, but how can one truly "celebrate" a "hostile and indifferent universe"? To me, this turns humanism into nihilism and makes existence pointless. I find nothing celebratory about this.
One has only to read Kitchen, Hoffmeier, et al, to know that it isn't so cut and dried and that many of these issues are still open to debate.
The historicity of certain of the details is debated there is no credible archaeologist that thinks the Biblical account is true. Sure, some will argue that there may have been some Exodus. But, nobody says that the biblical account is true. Not even frum Jews like Lawrence Shiffman or Conservative Rabbis like nahchum sarna say that. The problems with positing the Biblical account are:
1. On certain technical details, there are some errors in the Bible. Now, to argue for some Exodus different from the one in the Bible is fine because you can just say the Bible got those details wrong. But, one can not credibly maintain the Biblical account as being true.
2. All agree that there is not shred of evidence, not one piece of pottery, not one papyrus, not one coin, not one history, not one anything extra biblical that supports the Exodus. Now, if you are arguing that there was some Exodus at some point in time, you have no problem. But, if you are arguing that the Biblical account, which features 2 million Jews leaving Egypt and going to Palestine (remember, the whole population of Egypt at the time was in the low millions and the whole population of Palestine in the low hundreds of thousands) with osos and mofsim and then conquering the entire native Palestinians, you have a serious problem as such an event should have left much evidence and not one shred exists, despite the fact that we have very comprehensive Egyptian records from the period.
But I really wanted to question your statement that a "hostile and indifferent universe can and should be celebrated." Certainly a humanist can celebrate the incredible accomplishments of wo/man, but how can one truly "celebrate" a "hostile and indifferent universe"? To me, this turns humanism into nihilism and makes existence pointless. I find nothing celebratory about this.
Personally, I find the atheist world view to actually be more fulfilling than the theistic one. I’m not exactly sure why. It might just be because the theist worldview seems fake, as though you are relying on some false comfort. In that case, of course, it’s not that it’s better, it’s just that it’s real.
But, I think it’s more than that. I think that fundamentally, there is something incredibly sublime and orderly about a universe that is essentially governed by one to three simple clear and elegant laws. The theistic universe, at least the one portrayed in the Bible, is random and subject to the inexplicable whim of one entity. The atheistic one follows a short concise set of laws. It’s almost like the difference between Bernanke and Greenspan.
And, that those simple laws could engineer the complexity we observe is to me nothing short of remarkable.
I would like to hear whom you have consulted with and what they have said to you?
daat y,
you talking to be or gruber?
"I welcome you to the small, yet perhaps growing, ranks of the ex-Orthodox.
i certainly hope the two of you become a trend setter. People leaving orthodoxy by the droves has happened before in history. Who knows? Maybe it will happen again?
littlefoxling"
Why do you want that? I'm not looking for Sri Lanka and Bhutan to stop being Buddhist or Angola and Spain to stop being Catholic.
Why do you want that? I'm not looking for Sri Lanka and Bhutan to stop being Buddhist or Angola and Spain to stop being Catholic.
not am I. but, in this particular case, if lots of people go otd - it will make my life a lot easier on a logistical level?
not should be nor
"not am I. but, in this particular case, if lots of people go otd - it will make my life a lot easier on a logistical level?
littlefoxling"
No you are not destroying some Scientology sect you are asking for people to abandon their culture.
if you are arguing that the Biblical account, which features 2 million Jews leaving Egypt and going to Palestine...
That's completely a matter of interpretation of what eleph is. Do you think that 5,500 people (per Petrie) leaving mitzrayim is a problem? How about 20,000 (Mendenhall/Humpreys)?
osos and mofsim
Easily explained by naturalistic phenomena.
Oy is this interesting article on Richard Dawkins.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...v/
06112103.html
His letter.
http://www.sundayherald.com/
sear...e_afterword.php
My how much more moral we are in the 21st century!
Sorry to hear you went off the Derech Rabbi Gruber.
Jacob Stein also went off the Derech. LOL
That's completely a matter of interpretation of what eleph is. Do you think that 5,500 people (per Petrie) leaving mitzrayim is a problem? How about 20,000 (Mendenhall/Humpreys)?
There is but one possible definition. Consider for example Nu 2. We have the following census information:
Reuben – 46 “elef,” & 500
Shimon – 59 “elef” & 300
Gad – 45 “elef” & 650
Total: 151 elef & 450
The numbers only add if elef is 1,000. And, one can repeat this same argument many times in the census in Nu 2 and elsewhere in the Bible as well. Moreover, since the numbering system is clearly a decimal one, with new words for 1, 10, & 100, it is very reasonable to assume elef means thousand. In contrast, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to assume it means anything different. It clearly means thousand. There is no debating that. To suggest the author meant anything else is just plain absurd.
First Sha’alvim, hardly qualifies as one of the most prominent institutions of higher Orthodox Jewish learning in Israel in my book.
Second the guy is a disgruntled GAY. If he remains frum, no sex. "I really just don’t connect to it anymore emotionally or cognitively." He's dying for a reason to get out. Oh did I mention he's GAY! As I've stated several times LF, I suspect the same is true of you.
"You are mechazek us all. How is he mechazek you? When are you coming out of the closet?
He disgusts me LF!
SDR, why do you think he's 'GAY'?
The bio I found says he's married with kids...
http://www.jewishtoledo.org/
page...ArticleID=32747
http://www.jewishtoledo.org/
page...ArticleID=32747
Hold it. Is that him? How do you know? I also that article. Why would he be Orthodox from 8 if his father was Conservative. We have to see.
"Rabbi David S. Gruber, a native of Evanston, Illinois, and an eighth generation rabbi, grew up in Israel"
LittleFoxling how was he growing up exclusively in Israel and also a native of Evanston Illinois? Do you mean he left Illinois while he was a baby or toddler or so?
"http://www.jewishtoledo.org/ page...ArticleID=32747
Hold it. Is that him? How do you know? I also that article. Why would he be Orthodox from 8 if his father was Conservative. We have to see.
Rabban Gamliel"
Assuming he is the same Rubbi Gruber as in http://www.jewishtoledo.org/ page...ArticleID=32747 it says there:"Rabbi Gruber, who has two brothers and two sisters, was born in Chicago and moved to Israel when he was 8 years old." So he would have partially grown up both places.
[Eleph] clearly means thousand. There is no debating that.
Numerous scholars would take exception to such a glib statement. The totals could have been a later addition; I'm surprised that someone who is an adherent of the DH would suggest otherwise.
sdr is confusing the note that rabbi gruber made about the flatbush yeshiva principal who left announcing he was gay.
sdr confuses things because he is a transvestite.
by the way, ala sienfeld, not that there is anything wrong with transvestites.
There's no wrong with anything. Do you want.
"Do you want."
Should read "Do what you want."
"then conquering the entire native Palestinians, you have a serious problem as such an event should have left much evidence and not one shred exists, despite the fact that we have very comprehensive Egyptian records from the period.
littlefoxling"
Littlefoxling nations of that time certainly the Egyptians were not much into recording defeats. But in event you're wrong. There is evidence of a slow take over of the Canaanite territory. And the desert is not of a place for discovering things especially if the Sinai desert wasn't the main area of Israelite wandering. There was Saudi Araibia too. Also LittleFoxling there were no Palestinians. There were Canaanites, our ancestors.
http://www.mediasense.com/athena...a/
jerusalem.htm
The Tanach does not represent the Israelites as having conquered at once all the native inhabitants.
SDR said: "He disgusts me LF!"
Not only are you comprehension-challenged (David Gruber is a heterosexual married male, not that it really matters to the story) but you're also homophobic and intolerant. Just like Orthodox Judaism.
Numerous scholars would take exception to such a glib statement. The totals could have been a later addition; I'm surprised that someone who is an adherent of the DH would suggest otherwise.
well duh. of course it's possible that some biblical authors didn’t mean thousand by it. But then, it’s also possible that some Biblical authors didn’t think there were 600 elef at all. But that’s not the point. The point is that there were some Biblical authors who got it wrong.
It’s trivial that you are never going to get a disproof better than that. I already conceded there might be some sort of Exodus and I obviously can’t disprove the Exodus of every author cause you could always bring me one isolated passuk that has very little content in it which I could never disprove.
The point is that some Biblical authors got it wrong and that is problematic from an OJ viewpoint.
Also, I don’t really think it’s feasible to say that the author of Nu 2 or any of the other census chapters meant anything but thousand. Sure, you can interpret Ex 12:37 in that way. But, I don’t think that you can just argue that the totals in Nu 2 are a later addition because:
1. They sure don’t sound that way
2. Even without those verses, the word elef sure sounds like thousand since it’s the next step in the decimal system – 1, 10, 100, 1,000 and numbers 2 is a very rigours mathematical system
3. such verses that prove it means thousand are ubiquities in the Bible.
4. There’s absolutely no reason to say it means anything else.
Two questions for David Gruber (does he still refer to himself as Rabbi? That is not the first question):
1) If he has sons, will he have them circumcised?
2) Will he say kaddish for a loved one that passes away?
oh, and zach.
the number of hundreds in the census ranges from 1 - 9 suggesting that elef is 10 hundreds.
Is he the same Rabbi Gruber as below?
http://www.jewishtoledo.org/ page...ArticleID=32747
Editrix,
I am not comprehension-challenged, I just read too fqst. At any rate this so called rabbi/charlatan is the product of a distinguished lineage of "rabbis" his father conservative and grandfather reform. While he might not be gay, he is not a 7th generation rabbi, as reform and conservative hardly count. BTW the guy still disgusts me. BTW Editrix I hope all of your kids are GAY.
happywithhislot, I take offense at your inference that transvestites are confused.
The post is one huge overblown propaganda piece. Everything is in Black and White with it. Judaism is all false and all bad in it. There's got to be more to his story. It doesn't explain enough especially if he is the Rabbi Gruber of http://www.jewishtoledo.org/ page...ArticleID=32747
littlefoxingly, after you have crawled out from under the covers in the middle of day, hung over and having spent the night with a woman you don't know, and having conceived a child you will not care for, please crawl back in again and go back to sleep. Don't bother cluttering the Internet up with more rubbish about truth and humanism.
Thank you.
I wonder what happened to my most recent post?
"“A moment in history has now arrived when even a pygmy such as myself can claim to know more [then the wisest of previous generations – DSG]"
That's also so overblown. At least Hitchen's drinks before he says anything.
> BTW the guy still disgusts me. BTW Editrix I hope all of your kids are GAY.
The manner in which you choose to dispense your good wishes upon others says more about your chosen faith's deficiencies than anything I could say.
I don't think so. I think it has more to do with the sorrounding culture.
Americans are good cursers.
Are you a homophobe Edit? I just meant that if somebody is gay it would be great to have someone as understanding and enlightened as yourself as a nurturing parent. BTW I'm Protestant.
"In fact, the consensus of archeologists today is that the Israelites and Judahites emerged out of the Canaanites of the Central Highlands of Ancient Palestine in the 12th-11th Century B.C.E."
That's revisionist nonsense.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?
id...bTGuJo#PPA68,M1
Jacob Stein
Have you confirmed you're still Jewish?
David, you wrote, “Please do not refer to me as someone who is off the derech.” David, you are off the derech. You are a man standing alone, trying to peer back in time, without any connection to history, making up anew what took place before. The derech, David, stretches from the past into the now. You have no past. You only want David’s path. That is not the derech we speak of. You offer no facts, David. You hypothesize, and criticize others who use your methods and more. It is hypocritical, David. You sya you are on a “truer” derech. That is a very uninformed and unsupportable claim, David.
Great letter.
On a side note this was the first time I've heard anything about the Canaanite alphabet or domesticated camels. Interesting angle.
This post has no validity whatsoever.
“There is absolutely no proof that Orthodox Judaism’s claims are valid.” False.
“There is certainly no proof that the Oral Law existed much time before the Common Era.” False.
“I am convinced that significant parts of the Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible) and the corpus of Halacha are immoral, intolerant, backward, racist, sexist and homophobic.”
False. If God said it, it is moral. There is not other meaningful standard for morality. And by the way, the Torah does not recognize the existence of “races”.
“There is simply no serious opposition from the Orthodox camp, which can deal with, and explain away the hundreds of points of data in six or seven different categories converging together that back up the Documentary Hypothesis.” False.
“Fourth, an honest look at today’s mainstream Syro-Palestinian archeology can lead only to one understanding, namely, that the Exodus from Egypt, including the subsequent journey through the Sinai and Transjordan, and the Conquest of Canaan, never happened in any way remotely related to the account in the Torah, and for all practical purposes never happened at all.” False.
Why would some convince himself of so much falsehood? It’s pretty simple.
domesticated camels
actualy, they show up in one of the posts on my to post list.
LNM & Dave, actually, I've heard that the Camels have in fact been domesticated (as far back as 2,500 BC, according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara...i/
Arabian_Camel
On another note, I find it ironic how it's people like SDR and JP who keep on raising issues of sexuality, often out of the blue. It makes you think.
Yeah if SDR is Protestant and JP was. Then maybe Protestants like sex.
LNM & Dave, actually, I've heard that the Camels have in fact been domesticated (as far back as 2,500 BC, according to Wiki
but they weren't widely used untill much later, later than the bible says. at least that's what finkelstien says in his 2001 book. you don't get much more current than that and he's considred an authority. i trust him.
Yeah if SDR is Protestant and JP was. Then maybe Protestants like sex.
sdr isn't he's llieing out of his tuchis like he always does. guys, just ignore them
and even your wiki article says some say it was 1400 BCE which would be post abraham.
I am Protestant. I protest skepticism.
From Wiki, This pre-dates Abraham, no?
Originally native to western Asia and East Africa, dromedaries were first domesticated in central or southern Arabia some thousands of years ago. Experts are divided regarding the date: some believe it was around 4000 BC, others as recently as 1400 BC. There are currently almost 13 million domesticated dromedaries, mostly in the area from Western India via Pakistan through Iran to northern Africa. None survive in the wild in their original range, although the escaped population of Australian feral camels is estimated to number at least 500,000.[3] Around the second millennium BCE, the dromedary was introduced to Egypt and North Africa.
Although there are several other camelids, the only other surviving species of true camel today is the Bactrian Camel. The Bactrian camel was domesticated sometime before 2500 BCE in Asia, well after the earliest estimates for the dromedary. The Bactrian camel is a stockier, hardier animal, being able to survive from Iran to Tibet.[4] The dromedary is taller and faster: with a rider they can maintain 8-9 mph (13 - 14,5 km/h) for hours at a time. By comparison, a loaded Bactrian camel moves at about 2.5 mph (4 km/h).[5]
> I am Protestant. I protest skepticism.
Your interests at XGH indicate that you are of LWMO persuasion. You are barely religious. You're probably going to Gehenom anyway.
At XGH,
Dina Najman
SDR | 11.13.07 - 2:00 pm | #
Is that who you dream about at night?
Or do you dream about the sheep?
Norm Lamm?
SDR | 11.13.07 - 1:48 pm | #
BHB,
i am not a scholar. but, finkelstien says that camels weren't used widely in that period. he knows what he's talking about. i'm not in a position to be machria here.
littlefoxling, you wrote, "but they weren't widely used untill much later, later than the bible says. at least that's what finkelstien says in his 2001 book. you don't get much more current than that and he's considred an authority. i trust him." Your own argument regarding current philosophers contradicting witnesses from past times is astounding. Nowhere is there a conflict with regards to the use of camels by the avot except in revisionist, psuedo-scientific writings.
Skeptanon
What's your point?
SDR, you keep bashing LF about the gay stuff so I'm tossing it back to you. You don't like unwarrented innuendo? Then don't do it to others.
"LNM & Dave, actually, I've heard that the Camels have in fact been domesticated (as far back as 2,500 BC, according to Wiki
but they weren't widely used untill much later, later than the bible says. at least that's what finkelstien says in his 2001 book. you don't get much more current than that and he's considred an authority. i trust him.
littlefoxling"
No Finkelstein is just being dogmatic. Camels were domesticated and nicely used. It didn't take over a hundreds of years for it to catch on once domesticated.
http://www.marisamontes.com/
all_...bout_camels.htm
Why is it that only later in Biblical history are horses mentioned being used? If it's anachronism let it be said from the beginning.
Camels were not used by Avraham in the stories as what he rode so maybe that fits in with Finkelstein but how much use of camels is needed to be mentiond anywhere? If it was domesticated it can get mentioned.
http://www.christian-thinktank.c...m/
qnocamel.html
http://
www.jewishencyclopedia.co...search=Gentiles
LF, great post lots of great points.
one thing though, it was really hard navigationg the comments on this post. so many garbage comments it is getting absurd.
"Nowhere is there a conflict with regards to the use of camels by the avot except in revisionist, psuedo-scientific writings.
Avrohom"
you just made incorrect biased assertions, that don't deserve a response. If you had any backup to statement maybe it would warrant looking into. But i am sure the only backup u posses is the bible itself. i wonder if you can even back up the fact the the Avot existed in the first place.
Yeah, I think he's wrong about the camel thing. He is also way too favorable to archeological revisionism which itself is based on only very tenuous reasoning. And he doesn't seem to care to discuss the philosophical problems inherent to Humanism.
Oh, and he's quoting Hitchens! That's just in poor taste.
Lastly, it's the Yeshivah of Flatbush - not the Day School of Flatbush.
Not that he's generally off the mark, but it seems to me that he's got a case of baby with bathwater syndrome.
"one thing though, it was really hard navigationg the comments on this post. so many garbage comments it is getting absurd.
Chasid Kofer"
" "Nowhere is there a conflict with regards to the use of camels by the avot except in revisionist, psuedo-scientific writings.
Avrohom"
you just made incorrect biased assertions, that don't deserve a response. If you had any backup to statement maybe it would warrant looking into. But i am sure the only backup u posses is the bible itself. i wonder if you can even back up the fact the the Avot existed in the first place.
Chasid Kofer"
What open minded brilliant things you said. I'm so impressed. That's it shut up other people's opinions. Tell them don't even bother to look things up. People were giving sources on the camels and as for the Avot there are good reasons for not dismissing them outside of the Bible. They fit their period. People said to dismiss the Hittites since they were only mentioned in the Bible and that looks silly now. You're a perfect illustration of how the need to believe something cuts across lines of religious and skeptical.
Here's a contradiction in what David Gruber writes. On one hand he writes:
"At that time Hebrew script and writing did not yet exist."
On the other hand he writes:"The Canaanite alphabet had barely been standardized, after the change from 27 consonants to 22 consonants, and it was still written right to left, left to right and vertically too."
The problem is that the Canaanite alphabet and language means Hebrew and it's alphabet existed already. Canaanite is a form of Hebrew or if you want say it in reverse Hebrew is a form of Canaanite.
David Gruber threw theories together that don't match. The theory of early Israelite illiteracy was made based on the idea that Israelites not Canaanite in origin and saying that writing was unknown to them at the time, something soon disproven by archeology. At the same time David Gruber says that the Israelites were of Canaanite origin. But the Canaanites he said were already literate so how can he then say with the older archaeologists that when the Israelites emerged they were illiterate.
Yeah, I think he's wrong about the camel thing.
are you sure? finkestien says, very unequivacly, in his 2001 book, that it is a problem. Do you have a credible archeologist who says otherwise? (rabbi maroof doesn't count)
one thing though, it was really hard navigationg the comments on this post. so many garbage comments it is getting absurd.
it's best to just ignore them
Oh, and he's quoting Hitchens! That's just in poor taste.
ei zehu chacham? halomed mikul adam.
Where is David Gruber? What's he doing now? Does he have email? Was he married? Children? How are they taking this?
Just curious.
"Rabbi Gruber, a former member of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) is one of the only ordained Orthodox rabbis in the world, who has renounced Orthodoxy and sees himself as a secular humanist."
Can't we actually delete "one of"?
"Oh, and he's quoting Hitchens! That's just in poor taste.
ei zehu chacham? halomed mikul adam.
littlefoxling"
But that's if Hitchens has something to say.
"Yeah, I think he's wrong about the camel thing.
are you sure? finkestien says, very unequivacly, in his 2001 book, that it is a problem. Do you have a credible archeologist who says otherwise? (rabbi maroof doesn't count)
littlefoxling"
Others said differently in their 2001-2007 musings. He's grasping at straws and so are you. People may not have been using camels as standard transpotation. Avraham Bilam use donkeys. But still there were camels too. You are just being arbitrary in picking Finkelstein in 2001 as if he wasn't capable of getting something wrong or using older material. Look LF you are wrong the Hebrews used camels and donkeys.
http://www.vision.org/visionmedi...cle.aspx?
id=407
Righteous Kofer, oh how sad to proclaim one’s self with such a negative name. Thousands and thousands of years after Mt. Sinai some lonely men decide that camels were not used and that the Avot did not really exist. Yet for thousands and thousands of years, people with an unbroken chain of generational connection and learning all knew Chumash is accurate. So why would anyone believe a kofer with no connection to the past rather than a direct connection to our mesorah? How sad it must be to be you, a person who prides himself in rejection, and titles himself so. Refuah shlema.
Avrohom,
>>>Yet for thousands and thousands of years, people with an unbroken chain of generational connection and learning all knew Chumash is accurate.
Is that so? Thats very odd Avrohom, because your very own Tanach states explicitly in Sefer Ezrah that this "unbroken tradition" was in fact broken. You may want to read David Weiss Halivni's text "Relevation Restored" for more information in this regard. DWH by the way is considered a gaon in many circles, albeit probably not in yours.
Ezra doesn't say it was broken. He says there was mass ignorance.
>>> Ezra doesn't say it was broken. He says there was mass ignorance.
Mass ignorance suggests broken to me. With ignorance, the then leadership could have imposed anything on the people. In fact, your Mesorah states explicitly that had the Torah not been given to Moshe, it would have been give to Ezra. The academic view is that Ezra was an editor himself, drawing on all the disparate resources before him and attempted to come up with one document that would be passed on to this day. But to say that the transmission of the Torah has been impeccable and uninterrupted is clearly contrary to logic and any sense of reason. Read it for yourself without resorting to any meforshim! I think we need to give God much more credit than what you are giving Him. Had God written the Torah, it would have been a much clearer and cohesive document. We, however, the people, screwed up in our transmission process, not unlike anything humans have laid their hands on.
Where would Ezra have gotten his information if no one remembered? The priests still had information. Further the leadership was in no position to impose. If they had that power why would anything have been said to be lost amongst the masses. Ezra and Nechemia had to do a lot of cajoling and even then their powers were in Israel. How would King Cyrus of Persia have issued an order to rebuild the Temple of G-d if there was no memory?
Further you say Ezra had resources so how could just anything be made up? Broken in the sense of not being as widely followed yes but you imply not broken but made up.
You're so skeptical so prove Ezra existed.
First, why do you insist on typing God with a dash? Are you afraid of hurting HIS feelings? For heavens sake, its not the Shem Hamefurash!
Second, you ask "Where would Ezra have gotten his information if no one remembered?". Good question, and the onus remains on you to answer that question. Ezra collated the information that was available to him in his day. Why do you so trust that what he conveyed to the "ignorant masses" was precisely what God had given Moshe on Har Sinai? Does it not fall within the realm of possibility that there may have been some broken telephone?
You ask me to prove that ezra existed. Its not for me to prove that he existed, it is for you. He is what remains of the unbroken line of transmission. If however one believes that what we have is not "perfect" and intact, then one should have no problem saying that Ezra may or may not have existed.
Sorry, I should have said "H-S feelings". 
Acher you present a different history so you have your own onus. As for G-d ok here God.
Acher, it is up to you to show that what you claim it means in Ezra is accurate, not the other way around. Show valid sources in our mesorah reagrding Ezra staring anew without any connection to the past. It is your claim, not Tanach's.
Why the name Acher? It certainly has nothing to do with Acher in shas. You certainly have no connection to what he knew before his fall, and no connection to what he saw during his experience with pardes, and no connection to his state of mind after his fall.
Why the name Acher?
The one who says history was different then anyone said before has more of an onus than one who has at the very least a history that was believed in without claiming you discovered something.
Gentlemen,
What the Tanach says and how YOU interpret it are two different things. Our Chazal tend to read things into the text that an objective observer would never read or understand when examining it without the benefit of the "Oral Law". So dont talk to me about what the Tanach "says".
What Sefer Ezra does say, and which RG admits is that there was an ignorant mass of people, who woculd have been told anything about how to fulfil the Torah. That presents an excellent opportunity for Ezra to impose his and His will upon teh masses. Want to know what a Sukah looks like, sure, here it is. Dont know what a lulav is, etc etc
Why the name Acher? Because my parents chose to call me that, ok?!
Why the name "Avrohom"? It should be "Avraham"?
"Our Chazal tend to read things into the text that an objective observer would never read or understand when examining it without the benefit of the "Oral Law". So dont talk to me about what the Tanach "says"."
Sounds like DH.
Acher, Chazal has integrity and seek truth and accuracy in their words and thoughts. I certainly have no reason to say that about those who claim Chazal do not know what they are talking about. You have no standing in interpreting Tanach. You are cut off from the source and base your ideas on what?
The spelling Avrohom is correct. Your parents named you Acher? In Hebrew?
>>>Sounds like DH.
Is that an argument? Case closed?
Baruch Hashem Chazal utlizes our mesorah, Oral Torah and all the integrity a human can develop when Torah becomes ingrained in their being. They actually have sources for what they say. Unlike you, Acher, who has no source but prefers your own ideas to those with a connection to Tanch's sources. It is absurd to set aside someone with integrity and sources for someone without sources and no method to measure your integrity.
Acher Ezra also would have had to fool the other elders and the King of Persia who was assigning Ezra to Israel thinking Ezra represents a real tradition. Ezra has no authorization to make things up.
You protray Ezra with midot you posses or you would utlize. It takes a real mechutzef to do so.
The proof is in the pudding, the proof is not in the proof. Chazal, and naviim, you charge with having the lowlife qualities of imposing their own will on Klal Yisrael? You argument is not an argument. It is based on no Torah values at all.
">>>Sounds like DH.
Is that an argument? Case closed?
Acher"
It's an argument.
Ok RG and Avrohom, you win. I am wrong. I shall become a frum yid starting now. I shall stop thinking, starting now, and respect only those who have integrity. But wait a minute, how would I know what integrity is dear Avrohom, if I have none?
Acher, you should learn to understand what you read. If you learned to understand and discern what is written, that is a start. Go back and try again. Where does it say you have no inegrity? Like your understanding of Torah, you read what you want and interpret it how you want reagrdless of what is written and taught.
>>> You protray Ezra with midot you posses or you would utlize. It takes a real mechutzef to do so.
Ar eyou not suggesting that i do not have integrity?
A mechutsef could have integrity when not being a mechutsef.
This line, "It is absurd to set aside someone with integrity and sources for someone without sources and no method to measure your integrity." implicitly and explicitly makes no claims as to your integrity.
>>>A mechutsef could have integrity when not being a mechutsef.
See, your Talmudic reasoning is too difficult to match. You should try making such an argument before a judge and jury.
Sorry you lack the intellectual skills to follow logic. Notice you have nothing to say regarding the actual the actual issue of whether or not I ever stated you do not have integrity. You see, Acher, my quoted statement is clear I never wrote any such thing. Factually, I wrote there is no way to know if you have integrity or not. You choose to ignore what is clear in favor of going after what you imagine.
If you do not understand how a person who is a mechutsef can also have integrity when they are not being a mechutsef, you really lack intellectual prowess and even basic understanding of words being used here. Unless one is consumed by impudence, and cannot ever act otherwise, it is quite possible for someone to behave with integrity when they drop their brazen behavior. As long as being a mechutsef is an impulsive behavior, this is a simple and clear notion.
"one thing though, it was really hard navigationg the comments on this post. so many garbage comments it is getting absurd."
Seconded.
Damn it, RG ruined another good blog's comments section.
Don't blame RG, it was Avrohom!
"Damn it, RG ruined another good blog's comments section.
Anonymous"
You are so right. I am subhuman. I am incapable of saying anything smart. What a brilliant commentator and propagandist you are.
"Ok RG and Avrohom, you win. I am wrong. I shall become a frum yid starting now. I shall stop thinking, starting now,"
All I'm doing is asking you to be thinking for yourself.
One person who tries to ruin commentary sections wherever I am is you.
I mean anonymous not you Acher.
I like RG's comments. He is polite and intelligent. I disagree with some of what he says, but I like reading him. Keep up the good work.
"I like RG's comments. He is polite and intelligent. I disagree with some of what he says, but I like reading him. Keep up the good work.
Avigdor"
Thanks Avigdor. I like you too and it sure would be a boring world if people always agreed. Do you agree with that? LOL I think the reason why I get thugs on me is that they don't like a "believer" arguing on their terms. What a bunch of believers these skeptics can be.