User talk:IZAK/Archive 14

List of High Priests of Israel
Oh my. By which, of course, I mean, GOOD FRACKIN LORD. Who comes up with this stuff? I seriously doubt pretty much all of them after John Hyrcanus II...if you look at the list, there are only 2 for whom there exist articles...Caiaphas, who is only attested in the Christian appendage to the Bible, and Theophilus ben Ananus, who is attested somewhat dubiously from the writings of Josephus. The other apparent legitimate Kohen Gadol is Jonathan, except if you actually click on the blue link, it takes you to Yonathan, chaver laMelekh (Davidh). I'm tempted to go put a fact after each and every one of the peeps in the list. I concur with you...some of these names are not even remotely "Jewish", by which I mean either Hebrew or Aramaic...Antigonus, from Antigone, Ananelus, Aristobulus, Ananelus (restored) = romanized Greek, Joshua ben Fabus...ben WHO? Simon ben Boethus, I assume they mean Shim`on ben Bo`ethya (to make up a name that sounds at least somewhat Hebrew), Mattathias ben Theophilus? Maybe they mean Matithyahu ben Ohavyahu? (WHO?!) Joazar ben Boethus? Who is this Boethus? and then [his brother?] Elazar...followed quickly by Joshua ben Sie [who?] then another pineapple Ananus ben Seth [Ananya ben Sheth perhaps? but still...WHO?!] OMG. I'm not going to go through the other 2/3 of the list, but this is, in a word, without citation, ridiculous. Or, in the words of Suzie Changstein (I believe that was her name in that Seinfeld ep.), "ridicurous". That said, the last one is clearly supposed to be Pinchas ben Shmu`'el.(again, tho, WHO?!) :-p Tom e rTALK 09:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically, since I think that the whole point of the names at the bottom of the list is to function as a kind of Stalking horse for New Testament pseudo-scholars, and has nothing to do with the facts of Jewish history at that time. Go ahead, as it was Clint who said, "make mah day", and dispute the whole darn list for all I care since it's full of "misfabrications". IZAK 09:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What!? Are you axking me to do you all the dirty werks?! :-p  Tom e rTALK 11:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I'll start then...watch me go... IZAK 11:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Grabbing my dramamine! :-) Tom e rTALK 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Neyr tomed
Hello! I have a question. is this the ner tamid? and are you rabbi? →image:Göttingen-Lampe.JPG

And shall you join to ja:Wikipedia:ウィキプロジェクト ユダヤ教 (Wiki project)? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sheynhertz: I looked at the image and yes it looks like only one TYPE of Ner tamid. There is no "one single design" for a Ner tamid, it could even be just a light bulb or candle, but the main point is that the FUNCTION of the Ner Tamid is what is important and what is required, so that there must ALWAYS be a light burning 24 hours a day preferably, in any synagogue hanging in front of the ark (the aron). How can I be part of a Japanese project if I don't understand or speak Japanese? I don't even belong to the Hebrew WikiProject because I am so busy at the English one. And, if I am not a "rabbi" then I am about as close to one as you can get around here it seems to me... IZAK 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions: --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
 * A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
 * A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

Hi: Since you asked for my opinion I have now added it. But my area of expertise is not really in New Testament as such. IZAK 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Age
You're right, it does seem sort of orphaned, but I'm hopelessly tied up right now. Maybe Eliezer or Fintor or some other editor could help? Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. IZAK 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Entry moved on "The Twelve Tribes"
Hi. I posted a question for you on the Discussion page of "The Twelve Tribes". I was curious why you felt the entry should be moved.Timkroehler 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim: I have now done so at Talk:Israelite. Thanks. IZAK 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Judaism in Japan
Hi, I saw your message on the talkpage of the above. Since DYK features entries from the latest articles, it would be very very difficult to perform due diligence on each one of them (We do check for appropriateness and also try to ensure that they are not copyvios). Template talk:Did you know has suggestions for later DYKs and hence, can be viewed as a holding tank of some sort. You may want to have a look at them and give your comments below inappropriate suggestions, if any, whenever you are free. If you need to reply to this, please do so on my talkpage. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Guru, my interests are almost exclusivley in the realms of Jews & Judaism so it's hard for me to get involve in other articles when I am flooded with what I am into. Thanks for contacting me and feel free to be in touch with me at any time. IZAK 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

hello! Please read talk:Judaism in Japan.

I made Yiddish word list. can you teach me the origins of the these words?
 * --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added my comments in the parenthesis above. IZAK 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel legislative election, 2006
You might be able to help with this page based on your location. See my big post on the Israel board. Thanks. Evolver of Borg 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Minyan article
You might want to take a look at the latest anonymous contribution to the Minyan article, regarding "minyan shivyoni hilchati". It seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of attention devoted to a minor phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

image
Hi Izak, thanks for adding the image to Yisrael Belsky. How did you make it small?Ortho 03:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Email
P.S.  ''Could I please have your Email address. Thanks.''

You asked me for my email in the PS, but if you sent me an email, don't you have it...? СПУТНИК ССС Р 12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I sent you an Email thru your user page's "Email this user" in the "toolbox" which does not let the sender know the recipient's Email address (it just sends the Email based on the sender's Email address). In order to know your Email you would need to reply via Email to the person who sent you the Email to know your Email address (that is, if you want to reply via Email, which is your choice.) I hope this explains it. Sincerely, IZAK 07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision in the Bible and Brit milah
I would suggest moving most of the Jewish stuff (especially the stuff from rabbinic literature) out of the Circumcision in the Bible article and into the Brit milah article. Rabbinic literature is not "in the Bible". Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay: I agree. IZAK 06:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish bereavement
Hey IZAK. I see you made a redirect from my recommended title for this article at Bereavement in Judaism. I've been bold and moved the article per my comments on the talk page. Don't hesitate to let me know if you think doing so was ill-advised. Tom e rtalk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Tomer: Bereavement in Judaism sounds logical. I cannot recall the circumstances of the redirect you refer to. IZAK 06:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The "circumstance" was that the title "Jewish bereavement" sounds um...like we're all mourning something, or that someone is mourning for us. It just sounds..."odd".  "Bereavement in Judaism", on the other hand, at least in my estimation, clearly says "this article is about how Judaism views and handles bereavement".  Tom e rtalk  09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that...it's just that I don't recall the circumstances under which the changes were made, that's all. I am not disputing your logic, I usually follow the same route myself. IZAK 06:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dabljuh's RfC
Hi IZAK - I just read your comment on the RfC. There seems to be some confusion. The medical organisations which DanBlackham refers to are giving their opinion on secular circumcision (on which, contrary to Blackham's assertion, they do not recommend either way - but I digress). These organisations are simply giving their view on medical benefits versus risk. As far as I know, no medical organisation has recommended against circumcisions performed for religious purposes, such as brit milah.

It is certainly true that some individuals (doubtless including doctors) are opposed to Jewish circumcision, but I wanted to reassure you that these organisations are not among them.

Best wishes, Jakew 13:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jakew: Thanks for letting me know your views. Unfortunately, from the way I read, and re-read, DanBlackham's comments, he is saying that all doctors agree that circumcision is "unhealthy" which would basically knock out Judaism's brit milah. I just cannot fathom this die-hard attitude from some of the anti-circumcision editors. I do admire your patience in putting up with their never-ending tirades and one-sided pontifications as if the highest authorities on this planet are its medical doctors when all they are is just a bunch of highly skilled technicians who either SLICE people up (a lot worse than circumcision !!!) or give people medications ("controlled" (?) POISONS with risks !!!). Take those two "tools" away from doctors and they are powerless, and their opinions meaningless. Morality, religion, and philosophy and much more doth not from doctors come. Let's keep our perspective please. I must get some sleep now. Best wishes. IZAK 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical comments on the Bible
Hi IZAC,

I have noted your comments on what I have written:


 * The following are your highly tendentious words, with a skewed view of what the Tanakh is truthfully about, that millions of people who take the Bible seriously will definitely find offensive: "I suggest that the massacre of the people of Jericho in Joshua chapter 6 would fit the description of an act of genocide. I would further suggest that some people might object to the selling of one's daughter into slavery as per Exodus 21:7, that others might also object to the compulsory execution of witches, as in Exodus 22:18. In fact, our ideas of right and wrong are often quite at variance with those that are set down in the Bible." Are these the words of a "Bible lover"? Obviously not! So it would then be correct to just attribute it to ignorance about what these passages mean and how they should be studied and interpreted, because no Torah scholar worth his salt who is familar with classical Judaic Torah study would ever say such foolish things. Your other examples and arguments are just tangents and "smokescreens" that are just not to the point.) Subsequently, please note: I fully agree with User:Jakew that it is pointless to let the discussion stray from the the topic of this RfC. I have said what needs to be said and I think it does not need further "defense" on my part as my presentation is crystal clear and very self-evident. So I will hold my peace for now unless someone is so desperate to debate, they should please contact me on my user talk page. Thank you very much. IZAK 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You have accused me of having a skewed view of what the Bible is about, that millions of people will find what I have written offensive, that what I have said is foolish. You may be right. I certainly agree that the discussion was better conducted elsewhere. However, I think it is important for you to understand that not everybody interprets the Bible in the way that you do. What is crystal clear to you appears very differently to others. Let's have a look at the verses that I cited:


 * Joshua 6:20b-21 The people rushed into the city, every man straight in front of him and they captured the city. They exterminated everything in the city with the sword: man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass.

If this is not a description of a genocide, what is it?


 * Exodus 21:7-8 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her.

Are you suggesting that no woman would object to this text?


 * Exodus 22:17 You shall not tolerate (lit. "let live") a sorceress.

Of course people object to a literal application of this text. Thousands of poor women lost their lives when they were executed as witches, some of them in the American colonies! The verse is one of the most notorious in the Bible, because of the way it was applied.

Your defence of your beliefs is vigorous and spirited. However, not all those who have viewed or applied these texts have had rabinnical training, and sometimes they come to quite different conclusions. Michael Glass 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Michael: Thank you for taking the time to give this matter some thought. Firstly, please do not misconstrue my forthright style, it is one of the ways that I try to "cut to the chase" of a discussion. Secondly, I may just ask, have you studied the Bible in great depth and are you are Bible scholar of some sort? About myself I can answer in the affirmative. I would not dare to venture opinions in areas outside of my speciality if I wanted anyone to take me seriously. Secondly, the verses you question and the questions you pose are not new, and do not have much to do with the discussion about Judaism's requirement of Brit milah. None of the examples you have dredged up here are in any way "permanent commandments" and have long been relegated to the "theoretical" --  unlike Brit milah. Thirdly, I notice you have a tendency not to be accurate when presenting cases from the Bible. Your examples out of context:
 * 1) In the case of Joshua 6, the Bible repeats in many places how corrupt and degenerate the Canaanites were. Also, where do you see any "commandment for all time" from this to "commit" genocide? The events happened in the midst of a long war against a totally vile group of nations in the midst of serious battles. God was bringing the Children of Israel to settle the land of Canaan -- now to become the Land of Israel -- but the nations of Canaan chose to fight against this and justify their evil ways, rather than mending their ways and or leaving. This was not Joshua's (or anyone's) "private war". See Joshua 3:9-10 "And Joshua said unto the children of Israel: 'Come here, and hear the words of the Lord your God.' And Joshua said: 'Hereby you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite;" and in Joshua 6:2 it is clear "And the Lord said unto Joshua: 'See, I have given into your hand Jericho, and the king thereof, even the mighty men of valour." Given this situation, the people of Jericho should not have been foolish to defy God's will -- they knew what was coming -- because it was God' will that the Chidren of Israel inherit the land (this is all according to the Bible, I am not making this up.) The discussion can go on, but an important point to note is that it's basically a record of the past, and not a "command" for the future. Certainly for the last three thousand years the Israelites have not been runnning around "exterminating" Canaanites...if anything, it's been the other way around for the Jews (which is another discussion).
 * 2) Next case: Biblical mention of slavery is a complicated subject. It's NOT the kind of thing we imagine it to be as was (mal-)practiced in the American south. The ancient Jewish sages long ago saw that the type of economic system based on slavery that the Bible speaks about could not be practiced and within Judaism there has NOT been this kind of system for two thousand years or more, probaly much longer. In fact, you should be looking at the broader picture and you should be remarking that Judaism, via its teachings about the original Exodus, was the first "national liberation movement" in ALL of history when God liberated the Children of Israel from real slavery in Ancient Egypt. So obviously, you cannot seriously accuse Judaism or the Bible of being "pro-slavery" in any way because it's the exact opposite: The Bible actually teaches that one nation, or even one person, does not have the right to enslave another, and that the verses that trouble you about how to interpret the "Biblical system slavery" is obviously not simplisiticly one-dimensional but must logically have other rational, and even moral meanings, and yes, even merits, that you are not attributing to it here. In truth, in the very ancient times of UNIVERSAL slavery (and latter day serfdom and Feudalism were not much better), the Bible is introducing revolutionary first-time unheard-of benefits to all types of enslaved people that you are not taking into account and that in all fairness to such a discussion you are failing to note. But honestly, this is a whole other discussion, and in no way does it illustrate that Brit milah is any less important or obligatory upon the Jewish people because Brit milah is not "slavery".
 * 3) Finally: Your concerns on behalf of the witches of the world is very touching (and quaint) indeed (do you really like witches?), but one cannot deny that the Torah does speak out against these bizarre people, as you point out from Exodus 22:17 and elsewhere. But, again, you get carried away and start lamenting that "Thousands of poor women lost their lives when they were executed as witches, some of them in the American colonies!" Who did the counting? And the fact remains, that in Torah studies one never hears about this sentence ever being carried out by a Jewish court, certainly not in the last few thousand years. Do some research and see if you can come up with actual cases of Jews burning witches. In fact, I am not sure if Judaism has a universally agreed-upon "standard" for what defines anyone as a "witch" (mechashefa). That the Christians in America got carried away is not the Jews' fault is it? And you know, if you want to defend "poor women", how about taking a look at all the "poor women" who have died at the hands of doctors as a result of truly horrible medical treatment? I would guess it's probably millions of "poor women (and men)" who have died due to bad treatment from doctors (why else would doctors be paying all that medical malpractice insurance?) Think about it, you are focusing on things that probably never took place within Judaism) while overlooking the failings of your doctor "heroes".

Thank you for the compliment: "Your defence of your beliefs is vigorous and spirited" -- which I do appreciate! And you can rest assured that I am very well aware that (as you say): "not all those who have viewed or applied these texts have had rabinnical training, and sometimes they come to quite different conclusions" -- which is precisely why I think that people who are ignorant about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism should get the benefit of learning from those who know more about the subject (isn't that how Wikipedia works?), and certainly not to defend their faulty conclusions nor to insert terrible information into Wikipedia articles, or is Biblical information to be treated differently? Who would take the opinions of non-medical experts or charlatans seriously if they opined about medical subjects? So thanks again for contacting me, and I still don't get why you are on a "jihad" to lend support to those who want to ban circumcision. Sincerely, IZAK 08:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear IZAK,


 * I note that you have replied in detail to the points that I have made. I am familiar with these arguments about the texts I quoted. It is notable that both Christians and Jews use similar reasoning to defend these texts. Both Christians and Jews blame the Canaanintes for their fate. However, others could well feel that their arguments reek of a "blame the victim" mindset. Look at European settlement in the Americas and Australasia. It involved the dispossession, dispersal and often the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants. My reading of the Bible would suggest that the settlement of Ancient Israel was equally bloody. Similarly, the Bible has verses that promote and defend slavery and the slave trade but the cry, "Let my people go!" has ultimately had more effect.


 * There is not just one way of reading the Bible. Even the Jewish Sages came to differing conclusions about many passages. Rather, by looking at the Bible from different points of view, different truths and insights can emerge, and these differing truths and insights can come together and enrich our understanding of the Scriptures. And as with the Emperor who had no clothes, sometimes, the clearest insights may come from a child or someone unfamiliar with the text.


 * Now about your criticisms. You say that I am inaccurate but you have not showed that I have quoted any text inaccurately. You say that I have quoted verses out of context but the context you put these verses in is an argument to justify and excuse the violence!  You write "The Bible actually teaches that one nation, or even one person, does not have the right to enslave another" but do not quote chapter and verse to this effect. At least when I commented on slavery in the Bible I quoted the text! You sneer at me for lamenting the fate of the "witches", but fail to see that I lamented the fate of the women. We don't know that they were witches. All we know is that was the accusation of their enemies, who used a literal application of the Biblical text to slaughter them. I think that you rush to the defence of the Bible because you see any criticism of the text as a potential attack on the Jewish people. I understand that this whole area is sensitive to you, but there is a vast difference between criticising the Bible and attacking the Jewish people.


 * Finally, on the question of circumcision, I must reject your "guilt by association" argument of " a "jihad" to lend support to those who want to ban circumcision." If you want to criticise anything that I have written on circumcision or any other matter, go right ahead. However, saying that we must be careful about labelling arguments anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish is a different issue. Sincerely, Michael Glass 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael, Allow me to respond to your last point first: I repeat what I stated in the Requests for comment/Dabljuh:


 * ...Dabljuh's self-appointed "crusade" against circumcision has serious anti-Judaism ramifications because the rite of Brit milah (Hebrew: ברית מילה literally: "covenant [of] circumcision") is the ancient and universal religious ceremony within Judaism welcoming infant Jewish boys into a covenant between God and the Children of Israel through ritual circumcision...Judaism can never accept a demeaning or disrespectful view of circumcision (such as displayed by User:Dabljuh), especially those that aim to stop it altogether. Therefore, in the spirit of an "amicus curiae" it is submitted that Dabljuh's behavior and tactics regarding the subject of circumcicion (as cited above) also pose a clear and present danger to one of Judaism's bedrock mitzvahs ("commandments").

I did not use the word the words "anti-Semitic", but I was pointing out that certain arguments do run counter and against Judaism and the Tanakh. No more and no less.

Some further responses to your quoted comments:


 * 1) "It is notable that both Christians and Jews use similar reasoning to defend these texts. Both Christians and Jews blame the Canaanintes for their fate." You seem to think that everyone agrees with your statement and approach. Honestly, it is irrelevant how, why or when "Christians or Jews" use either similar or differing "reasoning". To me that sounds like the statement of a socioligist or a psychologist, or perhaps even of a Reform rabbi talking or "reasoning" but not of someone schooled in classical Judaism at all. Rather, the correct approach should be: what is the Torah saying? What is written in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh? What does Judaism and its sages say it means? One does not study the Hebrew Bible, or anything in Judaism, with "Hitler's (meaning "the enemy of Jews and Judaism's") commentary" so-to-speak.
 * 2) "...Look at European settlement in the Americas and Australasia. It involved the dispossession, dispersal and often the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants...the Bible would suggest that the settlement of Ancient Israel was equally bloody." Well yes, war is bloody, but that is not a justification for using the word "genocide" as casually as you do. Also, the difference between the wars of the Israelites against the Canaanites was they were wars that were commanded by God (all according to the text of the Hebrew Bible), they were "wars of mitzvah" (milchemet mitzvah) whereas the wars conducted by the US cavalry and the British army were initiated by human governments.
 * 3) "the Bible has verses that promote and defend slavery and the slave trade." This is not an accurate comment. The Bible does NOT "promote and defend slavery and the slave trade". What it does do is speak in terms of an ancient and one of the oldest economic systems. You seem to be working under the modern assumption that everything and anything about slavery was wrong and evil, when the conclusion, if one looks at the both the Hebrew Bible and beyond is that it was not necessarily a bad or dysfunctionl system. In today's age, this subject is so beclouded by emotionalism and misinformation it's basically impossible to have a calm rational discussion about it, so I won't really try here. But as far as the Torah is concerned, it clearly presents a sytem by which to judge and and classify certain behaviors, labors, and penalties for measuring, quantifying and responding to a variety of human actions and situations akin to how one would measure, quantify and sum up goods and services using a weighing scale for measurement in order to arrive at a workable solution and result. It was an early and basic system to be sure, and for as long as it lasted it worked. However, that is no reason to either condemn it categorically nor to deliberately misrepresent it for something that it was not. This is a long discussion, but I hope you can learn something from it.
 * 4) "There is not just one way of reading the Bible. Even the Jewish Sages came to differing conclusions about many passages." While there may be many ways to read the Hebrew Bible, there is only ONE Hebrew Bible. And while, as you say, the Jewish sages came to different conclusions, none of them contradicted or denied the teachings of the Hebrew Bible as you often do. For example, while there is debate among the sages about how a mitzvah ("commandment") should be performed, NONE of the Jewish sages EVER say that Brit milah (Jewish cicumcision) should "not" be done or ever abandoned, and they would ALL AGREE that ANYONE who calls for the abandonment of one of the Torah's commandments is a heretic or worse (also defined by the Torah.) You can't have it both ways, quote the sages and then use them as false "support" that they would "support" a negation of the positions that they themselves, as Jewish sages, would adhere to. Normal people don't "argue" against themselves, but their opponents frequently do like to twist their words out of context.
 * 5) "by looking at the Bible from different points of view, different truths and insights can emerge, and these differing truths and insights can come together and enrich our understanding of the Scriptures." While this may sound "nice" in theory, it does not work in practice. In fact it can be a very dangerous exercise. The rabbis warn about this when they teach that the Torah is called the sam hachaim which could mean either "elixer/medicine of life" or "poison of life" with the basic question being how can the Torah be both a "medicine" and a "poison" at the same time? To which they answer that it all depends on how it's being used or misused. If the Torah is studied and understood correctly it's like good "medicine" that helps and even gives life, but if the Torah is twisted and used incorrectly it becomes like "poison", literally. So when you say seemingly "nice" things like "different truths and insights can emerge, and these differing truths and insights can come together and enrich our understanding;" a logical response to you is how do you know that the "truths and insights" you assume coming at you are not "poison", maybe you are handling the information in an incorrect and dangerous fashion that is harming you and others? How can you be sure that you have not become the victim/s of lies and your own self-delusions? Finally, let me disabuse you of a terrible error of logic and fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be "different/differing truths" because there can ONLY be one truth (singular) just as there is only one Earth and one sky. Otherwise, it's not "truth" it's just "assumptions" or "fantasy" or worse. Kindly do NOT assume that everyone subscribes to Relativism. Classical Judaism believes that there is only ONE truth and that it it contained in the Torah, see Jewish principles of faith for some insight.
 * 6) "I think that you rush to the defence of the Bible because you see any criticism of the text as a potential attack on the Jewish people. I understand that this whole area is sensitive to you, but there is a vast difference between criticising the Bible and attacking the Jewish people." If this is what you think, it's misguided. Be assured, the Jewish people have survived and thrived for millenia and any nonsense that's written about them and their religion on the Internet will make not an iota difference to them in the long run, and they don't need me, or anyone else, to "defend" them ! What I do object to is crass IGNORANCE, faulty dumb LOGIC, incorrect twisted arguments and silly conclusions. If someone arrives at a so-called "conclusion" that the Torah is somehow "wrong" since it (i.e God) commands Jews to circumcize their baby males at eight days old and then cites as "proofs" unrelated passages that deal with subjects such as ancient wars against evil people, slavery and witches without even understanding the original and broader context/s, and even claiming that "the clearest insights may come from a child or someone unfamiliar with the text" then, since this is an ECYCLOPEDIA and not a fantastical childish comic book, then I as an editor who takes the subject of Jews and Judaism very seriously must respond by providing: a) accurate information, b) remove errrors and mistakes, c) ensure that objectivitivy is maintained, so that d) no POV pushers (such as anti-circumcision "lobbyists" and/or their supporters) twist articles around, e) writers of articles about which one is knowledgeable, should stick to DESCRIBING and EXPLAINING their subject/s in the relevant article/s, and finally f) take action to defend Wikipedia's and the reader's best interests.

Honestly, this debate is already longer than I anticipated, and I do not wish to get into an even longer one with you here quite yet because you appear to be working with preset POV notions that seem to desire to undermine the Bible. However, I would really appreciate one thing from you, and that is, could you please describe in a few short sentences what your views of the Hebrew Bible, meaning the Tanakh, really are? What "school of thought" do you follow? This would be far more helpful in any discussion like this, to know "where you are coming from" rather than waiting around for you to make this or that comment about this or that part of the Bible as you feel like it. You know, ultimately, to be taken seriously, one cannot treat one's field of interest or specialization (schorlarly or professional) as some kind of "smorgasbord". Are you opposed to God in Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and it's 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in principle or not? Perhaps we could take the discussion from there. (The reason I ask this here, is because this discussion is about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, otherwise I would not ask.) Thanks. IZAK 10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear IZAC,


 * Thank you for making it clear where you stand on the Bible and Judaism. I do not share your view, but I would like to comment on some of the points you made above.


 * 1) I understand that you think Dabljuh's stance on circumcision is a "clear and present danger" to Judaism because of his attitude to circumcision. If so, it's worthwhile to understand why he takes the stand he does, and why. Even if he doesn't present a clear and present danger to Judaism, it's still worthwhile understanding what he has to say and why he says it, if only so as to know your enemy!
 * 2) I understand that you will acccept no opinion about the Bible from a Christian, a sociologist, a psychologist or even a Reform Rabbi. I was surprised that you appear to regard any comment on the Bible from anyone outside the tradition of the Sages as so unacceptable that you see it as the enemy's commentary, so to speak.
 * 3) It seems you regard the dispossession or extermination of indigenous people as questionable, except when ordered by God. You dispute my use of the word genocide but Joshua 5:21 makes it clear that they "exterminated everything in the city with the sword:man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass." The extermination of an entire city (except for a prostitute and her family) sounds like a genocide to me, as does the fate of Ai (Joshua 8:20-25).
 * 4) You make a good point about slavery. I understand that you feel obliged to defend this economic arrangement and to argue that Biblical slavery was different. Let's just agree to differ on that one. I, for one, have grave misgivings about the arrangements for slaves outlined in Exodus 21: 2-6.
 * 5) Your point about differing truths versus the one Truth strikes me as a word game. Different ways of looking at something does not rule out a final truth. It simply reflects the fact that people bring different insights to issues, and by putting these approaches together we can often get a more rounded picture of the underlying truth. After all, that is why we have two eyes.
 * 6) As I said before, I do not see the Bible the way you see it. If that means that you will immediately dismiss all I say as misguided and wrong, so be it. Please read this poem. {http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/south01.html#1} The old man saw that the Battle of Blenheim was a famous victory, but was able to describe the sufferings of the people that followed the conflict. The girl, in hearing the story said that it was "a very wicked thing". Neither the child or the old man saw the whole truth, but each saw something important. More to the point, the girl's insight showed that her heart was in the right place.
 * Finally, I have no opinion about your faith. That is your own business. However, I do not feel obliged to see things as you see them or feel that you should be obliged to share my views. Michael Glass 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)