And his prayers to the forum gods were not acceded to. :oops:

:p

I honestly can´t answer that. But in a religion where I am not allowed to eat things like shrimp cocktails, pork chops, lobster thermidor, cheeseburger, prosciutto or salami pizza, smoked eel, sturgeon caviar or steak smothered in cream gravy everything is possible. Think about it! :D ;) Sorry... :)

In which year did the first complete version of the Torah appear? How old is the oldest existing Torah?

I think you and your troupe got into the right place. :p

EDIT #1: Now everybody is going to play by the book.
General topics's dirty tricks... no more. :p:p:p

EDIT #2: The prayers had been fulfilled, the moderator is here "in person". :rock::rock::rock:

We just finished thick shoulder steaks for supper. :)
About 3500 years ago, on the last day of Moses' life:

"Then Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel."
- Deuteronomy 31:9

About 650 years old.

The leather parchments deteriorate and the ink fades and cracks, rendering the Torah invalid. Writing a Torah requires exactitude. One mistake, even the ink of 2 letters touching one another, invalidates the Torah from being used for obligatory readings. That's how demanding we are in accuracy.

So there´s roughly 2850 years between the oldest existing Torah and the "original" one. Guess what comes next... ;) In 2850 years a lot of things can happen, how can you be sure that no one actually changed parts of it to their liking at one point? That wouldn´t be the only scripture where that happened...

Please explain how come there has never been a major discepancy anytime in the 1000's of years of Jewish history between Torahs throughout the world?

If someone slipped something in:

1. How did it get everywhere else, where the text was not like that (and again, there never has been such a case - scoure the almost 2 volumes of both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, which quibbles over the smallest legal differences and you won't find a single instance of a major disgression between Torah texts anywhere.

2. How did everyone accept what it said when that's not what it said the day before and when it clearly states that it's referring to their ancestors who came out of Egypt? This was the original point made a few post's back (i.e., neither you nor I would stand for this).

I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone or a group of people actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed, but still not impossible.

2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs. :smug:
Is the inverse of that "probable"? :o :hmm: You said it, not me. ;)

:88)

I have enough for today... :) Laila Tov!

I beg to differ in that there is the competing accuracies between the Masoretic texts, the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does this subject need another thread or is it fine right here? (gtg school, lunch is over).

Wow! Why are so many people concerned about religion? Believe it, or not. That is the answer. Choose wisely!

-S

Legislating Violations of the Constitution:


From: ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...55.html?sub=AR

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University.

""" With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees.

The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.


The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years.

Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court.

Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law.

This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones.

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision.


Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution.

Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal.

The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal.

The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights. """

So? If you and the WP are so sure that the bill will be turned down, why are you complaining? I have yet to find this on any other site though.

^

Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.

No it hasn't passed the senate.