Excerpt Four:Distinctions without a Difference

From Part 5

BeyondBT wrote:”I'm not sure I'm correctly understanding your use of the word claims. The Torah is not a history, science, math or archaelogy book…… It is not making claims like a scientist or a philosopher that they want to prove.”

KAN wrote:What are your saying!? Are you saying that the HISTORICAL EVENTS of the Exodus, Flood, and Bavel never happened? That they are creative metaphors and myths that express theological and moral lessons? If this is so, please provide support within the messorah that allows for those events to be interpreted as anything other then REAL HISTORICAL EVENTS. I have never heard of this. Therefore, my original point, that the Torah makes Historical claims, still stands. The Torah also makes many scientific claims, like a rabbit chews its cud, something modern zoology disproves. So yes the Torah IS “making claims like a scientist.” It also, also as stated above makes historical claims.

As I stated earlier, why should I accept the Torah’s metaphysical claims, or even its “instructions for living” when its author is unaware of basic historic and scientific facts?

From Part 6:
After many emails and proding:
BeyondBT wrote:You are correct that most/all reliable Torah Scholars believe the Exodus and Flood did occur, but that does not make those claims historical.>>>

KAN wrote:It is most unfortunate that you are engaging in these kinds of word games. This is a distinction without a real difference and you are playing with language in a pseudo philosophical way so that you can create the necessary fiction to communicate an imaginary reality. Really, who are you kidding?.

Bye the way, you have finally, albeit indirectly, answered the first two questions.

1.Does Torah contain statements of fact (use any definition you choose) that can be proved or disproved by an objective outside observer?
YOUR ANSWER IS NO

2. 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.

SO ACCORDING TO THE SECOND STATEMENT -your evidence is based on pure subjective opinion * tautological, devoid of content- -an empty assertion, sort of like "Jesus is God, read the bible," as I've seen on some bumper stickers.*
.............................................................

............................................................
With regard to the flood, however, Modern Orthodox scholar Marc Shapiro has a great quote that is apropos. I want you to really reflect on what he is saying. He writes “To believe that the entire world was destroyed some four thousand years ago and that we and all the animals are descended from Noah and those in his ark (similarly to believe that we are all descended from a first man named Adam who lived 5000 years ago) is not merely to dispute a certain historical fact, or to deny the existence of say Alexander, Caesar or George Washington. On the contrary, it is this and much more. One who believes in the flood story literally (or in the five thousand year history of the world) rejects the entire historical enterprise. He denies history itself and places himself outside of time. It is pointless to even discuss, never mind argue; with someone who adopts this view since there can be no point of reference between the fundamentalist and the historically minded. Indeed, it makes no sense for the fundamentalist to even attempt to show the historical veracity of what he believes, since as I said above, his very position is a rejection of the validity of all historical meaning. As such any discussion is pointless.”