KAN wrote:
BeyondBT,
First, in response to your comment I am laying out what I think are our shared fundamental assumptions:
- G,d exists
- The Torah makes metaphysical claims (i.e. non physical reality NOT subject to the scientific method), such as the existence of G,d, his communication with Avram, Yitzchak, Yaacov, Moshe,etc, as well as such events as the Revelation at Sinai.
- The Torah makes Physical / Historical claims such as Rabbits chew their cud and the existence of such historical events as the Exodus, the Global flood, and the concentration of the entire world’s population in Bavel where the world’s population all communicated in one language. These Physical / Historical claims ARE subject to the scientific method, which includes historical and comparative religion analysis, as well as the disciplines of anthropology, geology, paleontology, zoology, philology, archeology, chemistry, physics etc, etc
Second, I would like to emphasize theheart of the matter: If these PHYSICAL CLAIMS of the Torah - - which are subject to the same analytical standards of analysis that modern scholars of numerous disciplines have successfully applied to other current and historical events - - do not hold up to scrutiny, then what am I to make of the Torah’s METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS? After all, if the author of the Torah is in error regarding the basics of zoology (i.e. in the case of the arnevet), or the basics of world history during the time of the flood or Bavel, why should I take the next step and assume that the metaphysical claims are true and hence that the author of the Torah is G,d himself?
The four questions that I have patiently asked you to answer at least a half dozen times, are based on this relationship between the Torah’s physical and metaphysical claims. Why are you continually obfuscating by ignoring our request to answer these basic questions? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by not viewing your evasion as a demonstration of a lack of integrity, something I discussed earlier. Am I to assume that you are not acting in good faith, in the spirit of openness, integrity and honesty? If your unresponsiveness is not based on a lack of integrity, could it be based on some kind of fear regarding where the answers may lead. Surely if the Torah is true, it will hold up to this most basic analysis.
Lastly and most importantly, I ask you - -BeyondBT, for the seventh time, please answer the 4 questions below.
§ Does Torah contain statements of fact (use any definition you choose) that can be proved or disproved by an objective outside observer?
§ If it does, what are they - formulate them. If it does not, any claim that the torah is true is mere opinion, but tautological, devoid of content- -an empty assertion, sort of like "Jesus is God, read the bible," as I've seen on some bumper stickers.
§ If you are willing to assert that Torah has at least some truth to it, i.e., contains factual and provable statements, would you also be willing to take the next step?
§ If so, would you to draw up a list of verifiable Torah statements, preferably such that, if disproved, would change your attitude to Judaism.
I would also like to ask a 5th question. Are you willing to take the risk that you may be in error? As noted earlier it would be the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty to not reciprocate this most basic of principles.
I look forward to your response.
All the best,
KAN
