so you're an expert on Judaism. I gather that you know Biblical Hebrew, unlike the "layman Jew".
Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah. I didn't say I was an 'expert.' I said I was versed. We were talking rather about what 'contradictions' you were certainly not 'versed' in (not your Hebrew instruction). Well, unless you had an very progressive Rabbi? From what I understand, the exception and rare.
And you're aware that Judaism existed long before Maimonides, and the the term "Orthodox Judaism" was only invented recently.
:nono: ONLY because of progressive and liberal departures. The terms are rather a demarcation 'from' those no longer following those traditions. The rift is the cause of the labeling of camps. I'm not aware of many 'ancient' Jews that questioned the veracity of scriptures. Some? Sure. We all have our liberals and/or nare-do-wells. It is only when it becomes necessary that we create an identity of difference. The Catholics have Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 disclaimers. It isn't that either is a new condition, but rather that the clash became stark. As I understand it, this is similar with 'orthodox' vs. 'unorthodox' Jews.
What is notably lacking from your post is any explanation of how the verses are consistent. It sounds like you are appealing to blind faith. "It can't possibly be contradictory, therefore it isn't". Maybe that works for you, but not for me.
It 'sounds' like you are quite a layman without really knowing the extent of discussion in 'theology' circles, both Jewish and Christianity by nature. Head in the sand? This problem has been extensively addressed, (on Google even! :noway: ). In our (Christian) camp, we call these biased and unlearned. You are going to have to forgive us, the German liberal 'higher (so called) criticism' left us rolling our eyes, especially when all the accusation was clearly unsubstantial. "Questioning" veracity, afterall, is a negative intellectual capacity. "Investigating" and waiting out the truth is the actual academic standard. These so-called 'higher' critics were nothing of the sort and proven wrong simply by Dead Sea Scrolls and archaeology. Will we find evidence of a mass Egyptian exodus? Yeah, I think we will. In my lifetime? Doesn't matter. It is a very limited myopic skeptic to demand it. At the very least, in my camp (Christian), we've worked alongside Jewish historians and scholars to show much of skepticism simply isn't rational let alone warranted. Why? Because the 'history' of such skepticism proves out wrong in the end. We DID find the Scrolls. We did find archaeology supporting, etc. etc. It is simply naught but unfounded (unfoundable) skepticism with little to no academic prowess (let alone effort) behind it (not sure where you fall in any of this, but I think addressing the history of liberal skepticism is appropriate for thread and topic).
For the most part, you can EITHER look for resolution OR doubt. This, btw, is the discussion point in thread, but I enjoy/appreciate the peripheral discussion and I think it adds to the thread topic. Simply 'thinking' there is a discrepancy is not a problem but trying to say their is an 'obvious' contradiction isn't academic to me. It nearly always implies and points to a posture 'about' the scriptures before you or I ever got here. The address and response to the number of animals is more than satisfactory to anyone but a staunch position otherwise. The answer is acceptable because it actually 'works' WITH the scriptures for the explanation. Of course, for 40 days and nights, there was going to need to be ritual and food. The amount then would apply specifically to the animals to be gathered and the animals already gathered. Even to the most skeptical, this IS reasonable and fits the text. You don't have to 'like' it, but then we are talking 'preference' rather than academics at that point, aren't we?
For the record, I am an observant Jew. I do not like the term "Orthodox" which implies that Judaism is a belief-based religion like Christianity. It isn't. Despite Maimonides.
I'm in a discussion over metaphysics and proofs in another thread so it is interesting you'd say this. If you would, I'd like to hear this explained a bit further. My initial reaction is "wrong, nuh-uh Habakkuk 2:4" but that's just knee-jerk. I need to know more precisely what you mean by it, if you would (thank you). -Lon
