Comment

Christian Patriarchy Movement Shackles Daughters to Fathers, Homes

108
Nyet12/01/2010 2:34:19 pm PST

re: #103 LudwigVanQuixote

Utterly wrong! Any translation that gets the milk and meat part correct, already has some of the oral tradition built in.

1. Suppose this is so for this place, and for some other select places. It doesn’t follow we can’t understand the rest of the text.
2. Suppose it is so for this and several other places. This still does not force upon us the Oral Law in its current form. This is not the acceptance of the Oral Law, this is the acceptance of a specific vocalization tradition. Note that there are several such traditions.
3. Suppose it is so and suppose that it can be argued that the translators are thus inconsistent, and thus either one has to reject such an unambiguous translation of this text or accept the Oral Law’s interpretations. In such a case one can simply go back to ambiguity in this and several other places.

Why is looking at an obvious linguistic clue so difficult for you to acknowledge? Further, if it is utterly clear that the Oral law goes back a very very long time - because it must, not just because of the linguistic issues, but because of the simple fact that you simply can not define the basic terms once you have them after using the Oral law to even get those words in the first place.

It is utterly clear that oral traditions go back a long time. Oral traditions by themselves do not constitute the Oral Law (which is a structured compilation and judgment of these traditions), and neither do they necessarily correspond to the original text’s intent. Even supposing you are correct in regard to the difficulties with the basic terms and such, this again does not show that the oral traditions got the basic terms and such correctly, i.e. in accordance to the intent of the original text. It would only mean that these traditions would exist, which is neither here nor there. And there is no evidence that these traditions would not evolve with time as they’re expected to.

A lot of people can half learn Quantum Mechanics. They read about wave functions and uncertainty principles and the observer problem, and they come out with endless New Age nonsense about electrons having “consciousness.”

The fact that no where is that in the original text of QM does not penetrate to them. If they learned enough math and physics to “get the commentary” they would not make such errors.

Bad analogy is bad. Science is verifiable, so let’s not mix it into this discussion.


Your argument started out by trying to claim that the text was somehow odious

The text calling for stoning of a young girl is not only “somehow” odious and misogynistic (whether or not such a rule was applied in practice).

and you mentioned certain passages. When confronted by the realities of the Tradition, you have shifted to a stance of “well I don’t need to look at the realities of the Tradition.”

Yes, because there is no evidence that this tradition is not as isolated from the original intent as we are now.

As to this being some ancient text. It is. However it is not just that. It is OUR ancient text. Don’t tell me that you can tell us what it says.

You again insist on mixing the religious and the secular.