Tanakh, manuscripts, scriptures, etc.

[Zenith]

Hi!

I am not a jew, and I have some questions about ye/your religion.

1. What translations of the Tanakh exist? are they many? And what manuscripts to they use for it?
by the way, is there a site from where I can download a Tanakh in english for free?

2. What is the Talmud for you, how do you appreciate it to be? And maybe, some details about what actually it is (are there only commentaries on the Tanakh?). Is there any other jewish book besides Talmud? (now I don't mean hundreds of other books of commentaries you may find to buy).

3. It's hard for me to understand... What's the difference between writting G-d with that "-" or with "o"? For me, this difference is like the difference of synonyms (differently written, differently spelled), or writting it in two different languages. Which is still the same thing, because they mean the same thing. Can anybody please clarify this to me?

thanks in advance.

[Moshe92]

Hi!

I am not a jew, and I have some questions about ye/your religion.

1. What translations of the Tanakh exist? are they many? And what manuscripts to they use for it?
by the way, is there a site from where I can download a Tanakh in english for free?

2. What is the Talmud for you, how do you appreciate it to be? And maybe, some details about what actually it is (are there only commentaries on the Tanakh?). Is there any other jewish book besides Talmud? (now I don't mean hundreds of other books of commentaries you may find to buy).

3. It's hard for me to understand... What's the difference between writting G-d with that "-" or with "o"? For me, this difference is like the difference of synonyms (differently written, differently spelled), or writting it in two different languages. Which is still the same thing, because they mean the same thing. Can anybody please clarify this to me?

thanks in advance.

1. There are many different translations of the Tanakh. I don't know of any specific websites like that.

2. The Talmud is the oral law. At Mount Sinai, we received both the written law and the oral law. The oral law was supposed to be passed down orally, but it became too long and complex for people to remember by heart so it was written down as the Mishnah. The two components of the Talmud are the Mishnah and the Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah).

3. In Hebrew, it is forbidden to write out G-d's name. It isn't prohibited to write G-o-d since it is just an English word, but it is a custom to write "G-d" since the word is supposed to represent G-d.

[Zenith]

about point 1.
if there are many translations, do you have any thoughts about a verse found in different translations, like "but which is the correct one?". especially if they are based on different manuscripts.

about point 2.
as I do not know too much about jews or judaism, I'll have to ask:
- what is Mishnah?
- what is Gemara?
- I suppose you mean that "written law" is Tanakh, and that "oral law" is Talmud. So, you understand the Talmud as being as reliable as the Tanakh? And one more question must I ask: if there was meant a written law, then why would it be needed an oral law too? And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written? And how did it become too long? Who added to it?

about point 3.
You mean it is forbidden to write Hashem (Y, H, W and H) in hebrew? but where is it written, or why is it forbidden to write it in hebrew? (by which I understand that writting it in other language than hebrew is not forbidden).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

However, you should note that these translations are based on the JPS - Jewish Publication Society - English translation of the Bible from 1917.  Needless to say (or perhaps it does need to be said here) the JPS is not exactly the most learned or reliable translation.

Included here is:

Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Writings - Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra / Nehemiah



Their main site is here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/index.htm

[Zenith]

Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).

And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?

[muman613]

Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).

And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?

I use the Artscroll Mesorah Chumash for my English translation. Of course the best thing to do would be to learn the Hebrew and read it yourself, then you will not be fooled by xtian {or other foreign} translations {like King James, etc}...

Learning Hebrew is the best bet, then you can attempt to understand the ONE TRUE TORAH! It has not changed a single letter in over 3500+ years..

[muman613]

The Oral Torah was given along side the Written Torah at Mount Sinai. It was not written down for almost 1300+ years until just around the Roman invasion period about 2000 years ago.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/190,104/What-are-the-Mishnah-and-Talmud.html

What are the Mishnah and Talmud?

A. The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?” To answer this and many other questions (like how to slaughter an animal in the kosher way, what tefillin are), G-d explained the entire Torah to Moses. Moses then explained the entire Torah to the people orally. This explanation is therefore called the Oral Torah, since it was transmitted by word of mouth and was not written down.

B. The Oral Torah was taught mouth-to-ear, mouth-to-ear, through the generations until the 2nd Century C.E., at which point the sages felt that it would be forgotten unless it was written down. Rabbi Judah the Prince indeed went ahead and compiled the basics into a 63 volume document called the Mishnah. The Mishnah was taught in schools through the generations, with an accompanying oral explanation. In the 5th Century C.E., it became too vast and confusing for people to understand, and the oral explanation was written down in a massive collection that dwarfs the Mishnah. This explanation is known as the Gemara, and together they - the Mishnah with its Gemara commentary - form the Talmud.

C. The 63 volumes of the Mishnah are divided into six sections, each one on a different area of Jewish life: Agriculture, Shabbat and Holidays, Family Relations, Civil Law, Temple Sacrifices and Ritual Purity. Thirty eight volumes of the Mishnah have accompanying Gemara commentary, making them Talmudic Tractates. The Talmud thus consists of huge books crammed with densely packed Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language that uses the Hebrew alphabet. The Talmud follows the six-section structure of the Mishnah.

How do I study Talmud?

1. Study with a partner or with a class

OK, you’ve decided to study Talmud on your own, with your brand-new English-language version. Now, you’re cruising through the third page, and you get stuck—something doesn’t make sense. The commentaries help, but not completely—what do you do? To preempt this problem, The Rabbis instituted what might be called the “buddy system”—always studying Torah, and particularly the intricate, challenging Talmud—with a partner. Better yet, go to a Talmud class—you’ll learn even more and meet people who share your avid interest in Talmud, too. Chances are your local Chabad center offers one.

2. Remember what you’re doing

The Talmud is not just an engrossing exposition of Jewish law and lore—it’s part and parcel of the Torah. In other words, it’s not just another book—it’s a Jewish book. When you study Talmud, remember that you’re studying Torah, Divine wisdom.

You might also want to read:

What are the books of the Mishnah?

and

What are the names and topics of all the Tractates of the Talmud?

PS: We believe that all the Laws of Torah were given to Moses at Sinai... Why was it given Orally? Take a guess? So that those false religions like Christianity and Islam would not be able to steal it... They basically stole only the Written part and did not steal the oral Torah {as a matter of fact they reject it, making the Written word completely useless}...

Oral Torah explains how to be able to perform the commandments... For instance what does the Torah mean when it says to write the Torah on the doorpost of the house {mezzuzah}? Only the Oral Torah explains how we actually perform this commandment of Mezzuzah... Same with TzitTzit and Tefillin , etc. The Tanakh is like the Clifford Notes, abridged version, with the Oral law filling out the missing pieces.

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html

http://www.torahanytime.com/rabbi_singer_oral_law_1_mp3.html

The Oral Law - part 1
   More than 3,300 years ago, God transmitted to Moses both the Written and Oral Law. What is the Oral Law and why was it transmitted that way? Missionaries claim that although the Written Law is the word of God, the Oral Law was a mischievous invention of the rabbis! Is this claim really true or is the Oral Law divinely inspired?

[muman613]

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
WRITING THE TALMUD

During the centuries following the completion of the Mishna, the chain of transmission of the Oral law was further weakened by a number of factors: Economic hardship and increased persecution of the Jewish community in Israel caused many Jews, including many rabbis, to flee the country. Many of these rabbis emigrated to Babylon in the Persian Empire. The role of the rabbis of Israel as the sole central authority of the Jewish people was coming to an end. This decentralization of Torah authority and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.

So they began to have discussions about it and to write down the substance of these discussions.

Since at this time a significant portion of the Jewish population was living in Babylon, which was outside the bounds of the Roman Empire, the rabbis there put together their discussions, the end product of which was called Talmud Bavli or the Babylonian Talmud. Even before this process had begun in Babylon, in the land of Israel, another set of discussions took place and the end result was Talmud Yerushalmi or the Jerusalem Talmud. (Incidentally, the Jerusalem Talmud was not written in Jerusalem; it was written in Tiberias, the last place where the Sanhedrin sat, but was called the Jerusalem Talmud in deference to the Sanhedrin's rightful home.)

Due to persecution of the Jewish community in Israel the Jerusalem Talmud, completed in the mid 4th century C.E., was never completed or fully edited. The Jerusalem Talmud is much shorter (it contains only four of the six sections of the Mishna(4)) and is more cryptic and harder to understand than the Babylonian Talmud. The situation of the Jews in Babylon was much more stable and the rabbis in Babylon had considerably more time to edit and explain the subject matter.

Although there are two Talmuds, they are not really separate. The Rabbis of Babylon had access to the Jerusalem Talmud while they were working on their text. But if there is dispute between the two Talmuds, the Babylonian Talmud is followed.(5) Both because Babylonian Talmud is considered more authoritative and the Jerusalem Talmud is more difficult to study, Jewish students pouring over the Talmud in yeshiva are using chiefly the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud is more than just an application of the details of the Jewish law as expounded in the Mishnah. It's the encyclopedia of all Jewish existence.

The Talmud also contains a lot of agadata -- these are stories that are meant to illustrate important points in the Jewish worldview. These stories contain a wealth of information on a huge range of topics. you name it, it's in there.

This information was vital to the Jewish people because Jewish law was never applied by reading a sentence in the Torah and executing it to the letter. Take for example, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." It was never Jewish law that if someone blinded you, that you should go and blind him. What is the good of having two blind people? It was always understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not a life for an eye) and 2) that it means the value of an eye for the value of the eye, referring to monetary damages. Thus, the Talmud presented the written and oral tradition together.

To read the Talmud is to read a lot of arguments. On every page it seems that the rabbis are arguing. This kind of argument -- the purpose of which was to arrive at the kernel of truth -- is called pilpul. This word has a negative connotation outside the yeshiva world, as people read these arguments and it seems to the uneducated eye that the rabbis are merely splitting hairs, and that some of the arguments have absolutely no basis in everyday life. But this is not so.

The reason why the rabbis argued about things that may not have any application to everyday life was to try to get to truth in an abstract way – to understand the logic and to extract the principle. These rabbis were interested in knowing what reality is and in doing the right thing. Reality is what Judaism is all about -- the ultimate reality being God.

Another important point is that much of the discussion and dispute is focused on relatively minor points while the larger issues are generally not disputed. You don't see a single argument as to whether or not you eat pork, or whether or not you can light a fire on the Sabbath. These things were a given, they were totally agreed upon. Only small points were subject to discussion. And these rabbis were wise enough to know that a day would come when the principles established by getting to the core kernel of truth would have far reaching implications.

GEMARA

When you look at the page of the Babylonian Talmud today, you will find the Hebrew text of the Mishna is featured in the middle of the page. Interspersed between the Hebrew of the Mishna are explanations in both Hebrew and Aramaic which are called the Gemara.

The Aramaic word Gemara means "tradition." In Hebrew, the word Gemara means "completion." Indeed, the Gemara is a compilation of the various rabbinic discussions on the Mishna, and as such completes the understanding of the Mishna.

The texts of the Mishna and Gemara are then surrounded by other layers of text and commentaries from a later period.

The text of the Mishna is quoting rabbis who lived from about 100 BCE to 200 CE. These rabbi are called the Tanaim, "teachers." In this group are included such greats as Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, Rabbi Akiva, and of course Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. (In the Gemara, they usually have the title Rebbe before their first name although there are many exceptions such as the names: Hillel, Shamai, Ben Azai and Ben Zoma.)

The text of the Gemara is quoting the rabbis who lived from about 200 CE to about 500 CE. These rabbis are called, Amoraim, "explainers" or "interpreters." In this group are included Rav Ashi, Reb Yochanan, etc. (Names of the Babylonian Amoraim usually are preceeded by the title Rav as opposed to the Amoraim of Israel who continued to use the title Rabbi/Rebbe. This is because the authentic institution of smicha – rabbinic ordination -- was only done in the Land of Israel.)

The surrounding text of today's Talmud also quotes Rishonim, literally "the first ones," rabbinic authorities (from c. 1,000 C.E. until 1,500 C.E.) who predated Rabbi Joseph Caro, the 16th century author of the code of Jewish law known as the Shulchan Aruch. Among the most prominent Rishonim are Rashi, his students and descendants who were the chief authors of the Tosaphos, Maimonidies and Nachmanides. We will discuss the contributions of these rabbis in future installments.

Just how important was the work of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and those that followed him would become very clear in the next hundred years when the Jewish people face another threat to their religion. This is when the Roman Empire decides to convert its entire population to Christianity.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).

And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?

Well, I'd certainly rely on the JPS more than any Christian, Greek, etc translation.

There are always problems with any translation.  That's the nature of the beast.  Artscroll is generally used in the orthodox world, however it seems they incorporate Rashi (a rabbinic commentator) often times rather than give the simple translation.   It is also the opinion of a rabbi that I know, that they based themselves largely on the JPS translation.   That said, either of these are probably the best option other than learning directly with a fluent Orthodox Rabbi who can translate for you.  Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's "Living Torah" is also another option and of course with its own complaints on it by various people.   Any of these can be very helpful.

The Talmud is the expression of the other pillar of Torah given to the Jewish people aside from the written Torah - namely the "oral Torah."  This is the tradition of explanation of the written Torah along with the expression of the written Torah's laws as understood by our nation in a continuous process of divine service since we received it.  It is the ONLY authoritative and authentic tradition of derivation of Torah law that continues in the path of Moshe, Joshua, the elders and the prophets before them (ie, before the Talmudic sages who continued within their overall paradigm, which no other group can possibly claim).  Of course it began as an Oral Torah, but now it too is written down.  Or at least its underpinnings are written in a canonical text known as the Talmud.   But the Oral Torah itself continues to proliferate in every generation based on the precendent and underpinning that is the Talmud, which all Jews are bound by. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).

And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?

I'm not sure what you mean.  Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today.  This surprised scholars.  But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different.   What do you mean exactly?

[Zenith]

I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.

The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”

Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.
about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included) I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough. Also, other examples in the torah (like making fire - which was not as simple as it is now using a button or something on the stove -, then preparing food, which implies enough effort as you cannnot call it that you "rested" in that time).
Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?

However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally.

but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).

I'm not sure what you mean.  Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today.  This surprised scholars.  But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different.   What do you mean exactly?

"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

- I suppose you mean that "written law" is Tanakh, and that "oral law" is Talmud. So, you understand the Talmud as being as reliable as the Tanakh? And one more question must I ask: if there was meant a written law, then why would it be needed an oral law too? And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written? And how did it become too long? Who added to it?

Excellent questions.

The oral law is needed to expound upon and give explanation to what is in the written text.   The written text, if you investigate the manner in which it appears, is in many cases not written in much detail, uses ambiguous expressions (at least to our untrained eyes), encapsulates ideas in metaphor or analogy, hints at something, is terse etc etc.  To fully understand what is meant by G-d's revelation requires an attached explanation and/or instructions, details, and elaboration.  It makes sense that the people who received this text, (The Jewish people) at the time they did and afterward, had a working understanding of what is meant throughout the text - or at least the greatest among this people, the most scholarly and pious and wise, would have operational understanding of what is meant in various places where the text itself does not sufficiently elaborate for someone unread and unfamiliar with the group's common expressions, culture, practices, beliefs, understandings, etc and moreso for those unfamiliar with what G-d means with various statements or indications.  And these most learned of men would transmit and teach to the Jewish people in general what is meant throughout the Torah text.  And it was their job to do so as the Torah itself says explicitly.   The oral Torah consists of the body of understanding that is attached to the written text, as maintained and transmitted by those most learned and pious -starting with Moshe of course who had a great deal to explain to the people, as the verses themselves tell us- to the most learned and pious of the elders, the prophets, the scholars, etc.

Anyone who is not from this group of people and following in their path and comes to try to (mis)lead the Jewish people is considered a charlatan.


As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh explains, and it seems quite fitting an explanation to me, as I paraphrase it: the Written Torah is written as if it is a series of lecture notes, a mere synopsis based on a detailed complex series of discussions between G-d and man in which the lecture notes refer to notions and concepts and details which were internalized by those present for the discussion, but not written down, and by the learned after them (and by the masses or in many cases, subsequently taught to the masses either from Moshe to the masses, or Moshe to the learned to the masses, etc etc).  Similar to note-taking, a word or expression on the paper can simply highlight a more detailed idea or refer to something greater with a linguistic cue that serves to remind of the greater idea.  Likewise, certain verses in the Torah only highlight a much deeper or complex or more detailed subject that must be known independent of what is written.   So while reading the written Torah by itself can be fulfilling and spiritually worthwhile, to understand its complex laws in detail and the overall operational infrastructure it requires for the Jewish nation fully applying its many facets, this cannot be done by reading the written Torah alone and thus it remains in some ways a closed book.  (I understand that is not relevant to a non-Jew who does not have to apply the Torah fully as part of the Jewish nation with all the commandments binding on Jews - and that is precisely why the Oral Torah is considered the domain of the Jews only).  With the Oral Torah one can fully appreciate and understand the Torah and apply it fully as a Jew and within a national infrastructure, all under the umbrella of tradition of those who first received it and were present at that earthshattering event at Mount Sinai.  Without the oral Torah, much remains hidden and impossible to implement, and we would be disconnected from the tradition of those who received the revelation and comprehended God's wisdom and law to the highest level when it first happened.  So we would be stabbing in the dark at what to make of the many verses and what to do in practice.

As to this part of your question:

And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written?  

This leads us to a very fascinating discussion of Oral traditions and the transmission of canons orally.  Scholars now understand that this ancient discipline was indeed quite reliable and sound.  With the development of technology, the oral culture has died out, and most things today are written, typed, etc for storage, so it seems foreign to us, but oral transmission of knowledge was nonetheless quite common in ancient societies and that methodology indeed maintained a reliable, genuine transmission.   Another commonly known example is Homer's oddyssey which was only preserved through memorization and oral tradition until written down at some later date.   Without the modern society and all its trappings, distractions, and gadgets, the mind has an incredible ability to memorize and store information.

This now will tie into the rest of your question that of course not all of it was memorized from earlier.  Most sources suggest that in the early days of the Great Sanhedrin until its demise with the destruction of the Temple, that people wrote down private notes of the decisions (aside from the fact that their decisions become the binding practice and universally accepted authority, and thus the religious observance serves as a testimony to the tradition).  So with private note-taking, not everything had to be memorized.   It was later that these decisions, and those from new developments and new issues, became organized into a canon and memorized (the mishna), whereby "gemara" - the expounding on this canon known as mishna - was instituted, and at some later date sealed as the final format - the Talmud, which contains all the mishnas and their explanations with gemara as one overall text.  

Interestingly, this fascinating process (that which we refer to as Oral Torah and which over time produced the Talmud and continues to this day with further decisions on modern day issues based on the teachings of the Talmud) reveals a pattern of interaction between text and accompanied analysis as well as a repeating dialectic between not only tradition and creativity, but also between consolidation and expansion.
Clearly a most complex subject, but hopefully this brief explanation will suffice.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.

The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”

Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.
about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included) I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough. Also, other examples in the torah (like making fire - which was not as simple as it is now using a button or something on the stove -, then preparing food, which implies enough effort as you cannnot call it that you "rested" in that time).
Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?

However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally.

but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).

I'm not sure what you mean.  Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today.  This surprised scholars.  But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different.   What do you mean exactly?

"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).

What you're referring to is differences in minor things like extra letters (extra vav's and extra yuds) which do not change the meanings of the words and certainly NOT different words in the texts.  In that sense, we already knew this before the dead sea scrolls were found because we know about the Aleppo codex, etc.   This is nothing new.  They have never found texts of Torah itself with any different words or different meanings.  If you like the Yemenite manuscripts over the Ashkenazi, or you prefer the Ashkenazi, etc etc, no problem.   There are different traditions and they are bound to pop up when copying by hand a written document on parchment.   There is a Jewish law within Oral Torah that specifically addresses this potential problem.  We go by the majority of texts and to my understanding the current usage of the masoretic format is the result of that.   Admittedly I'm not expert in this area.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I would also caution strongly about the usage of Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the phony interpretations of these scrolls that have been propagated in academia since the inception of detailed study of the texts.  When these scrolls were initially found, Jewish scholars and rabbis were forbidden from analyzing or studying them .  The motives were not pure and the scholars who commandeered the control and dictatorial exclusionary power over the scrolls had agendas in their exclusion of Jews from this academic endeavor.  They had something to hide and wanted to push their beliefs into the scrolls and onto the people at large.  I am sure these agendas are incorporated into whatever "altered bibles" you refer to.

Once a Jewish scholar clandestinely recreated and studied the scrolls, he exposed phony interpretations (and interpreters), and the lid was blown off of the field, now with Jewish scholars allowed access to the scrolls and many new ideas and theories surfacing even to this day. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.

The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”

Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.

about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included)   ---

   
You THINK, but you don't know.  Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing?  Well, that is precisely our claim.

I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough.   

How is that clear?  You can explain to me all things that constitute "servile work" and all types of work that are not within that category?  And you will know for sure you are correct about what G-d meant?  That is a spurious claim.  There is no way you or I can just naturally arrive at that and think that everyone else will agree to our premises if we merely make them up ourselves.  And clearly you haven't attemped to do so.

Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?

Once again, no offense, but you think, and we know.  Because we have a tradition of what the exceptions are and are not.  But these were derived by those who received the Torah and whom G-d tasked with the duty to understand and explain and teach Torah to the Jewish masses.  It is not derived 3000 years after the fact by you or I guessing and speculating with logic and cut off from society or practice or tradition or from consensus for that matter.

However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally. 

Yes, that is certainly logical to expect.  However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim?  This can be in many aspects.  And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not? 

As a very important parallel to this discussion, one should note that there are many areas in Jewish tradition where we have ancient traditions that explain the text of the Oral law!   So just as we had traditions that explained the details of the written law, once the Oral law became a written text of its own, it itself can be unclear in some ways without an accompanied practical tradition to explain the plain words that are written.  Here's a primary example.  Certain Yemenite Jewish communities maintain to this day a tradition for which locusts are kosher to be eaten and which locusts are not, and they can identify them on sight.   That was only preserved through transmission of tradition, whereas the "descriptions" and "names" of various locusts written down in the Talmud mean absolutely nothing to those groups of Jews who lost this tradition upon being displaced to different climates, etc.  This type of phenomenon is inherent in any written text baseline of instructions, not limited to just the Written Torah.

Certainly you (or any modern day person) cannot profess to tell me in which subjects of written Torah this is a relevant issue and in which it is not.  And for those which you admit to, including for instance the clothes of the Cohanim, it is only the Talmudic sages who have explained this tradition, just as they explained the other traditions, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, and they are just as reliable on that subject as on any other.   And people cannot come later (thousands of years later) and say they know differently based on some kind of guesswork or intuition that contradicts what the people who received the traditions recorded for us.

but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).

It depends what you mean exactly.  When it comes to understanding moral teachings of the Torah, ie philosophical beliefs, there is more flexibility (with the exception of a few commandments which demand of us to believe in G-d's Oneness), and different ideas can be true or accepted, and may even vary from individual to individual.  But if you refer to the law - how we practice the various commandments and carry them out in their details and on a national level, on this there can be no disagreement that G-d gave the authority to Moshe and the elders of his generation, and subsequently each generation that followed in their path after them, to teach and explain the actual details of these practices to the masses.   It's not as if G-d kept these matters hidden from Moshe.  I'm sure you're not claiming that.   So over time, more of this becomes "canonized" because for instance, how can we depart from how Moshe and the Prophets instructed us on how to construct mezzuzot for our doorposts?  (or the general idea of what the muzuzot are)?  It is sensible and logical that over time, the body of explanation, especially with regards to practical law observance, can become solidified and canonized because the Torah gives authority to those who explain it and solidify it, and the Jewish masses are bound to their explanations - not to a "Jonny-come-lately" who did not stand at Sinai, did not receive tradition from those who did, and comes around thousands of years later and makes something up based on reading a translated verse.  Of course there have been many in such a situation to try to claim "authority" for themselves, but we do not grant it to them.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today.  This surprised scholars.  But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different.   What do you mean exactly?

"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).

[/quote]
As I alluded to in my comment above, it is important to know which texts in particular they refer to and what they mean by "differences."

[muman613]

Regarding Shabbat, all Torah says is that we must cease all creative work... The Talmud explains the 39 Melachot, or prohibited forms of Labor.... Torah does not define what Work is? For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...

[Zenith]

I am currently listening to the video you sent link to... It will pass some time before I will be able to reply.

Just to know I did not forget about it.

[Zelhar]

‎The Mishna is a hasty, lossy compression of the oral law as it was past down the generations. The Talmud was then compiled to clear out and explain the mishnaic law.

[Zenith]

First off, thanks for the links to the Tanakh…
Then,
1.   I cannot tell how often or early I will be able to reply, so expect anytime long delays.
2.   Don’t ever send me any long video/audio to watch/see. It’s very much hard work and it takes a lot of time to quote from there, reposition the bar so that I hear again what he said because I did not understand well, etc. plus that I’ll have to wait a lot until he finishes his speech while a text can be read very quickly.
3.   Sorry for the long reply.

Learning Hebrew is the best bet, then you can attempt to understand the ONE TRUE TORAH! It has not changed a single letter in over 3500+ years..

I will be able to start learning hebrew seriously only after a month, but until I will be able to say “I know hebrew” I will have to rely on english translations. By the way, do you have some kind of Hebrew lexicon/dictionary or something that explains correctly and completely the meanings of words (optionally having the references in the Bible where that word appears)?
If you say that the Torah (I suppose you refere only to Torah, not to whole the Tanakh) hasn’t change a single letter in over 3500+ years (from the original), I think that’s rather something like ‘faith’ rather than something that can be checked.

G-d explained the entire Torah to Moses. Moses then explained the entire Torah to the people orally. This explanation is therefore called the Oral Torah, since it was transmitted by word of mouth and was not written down.

I don’t think there is any evidence to say that what God told Moses, apart from what was written, is exactly what you have in the Talmud (i.e. Mishnah).

We believe that all the Laws of Torah were given to Moses at Sinai... Why was it given Orally? Take a guess? So that those false religions like Christianity and Islam would not be able to steal it... They basically stole only the Written part and did not steal the oral Torah {as a matter of fact they reject it, making the Written word completely useless}...

The reason you gave is improper. Islam was founded after the Talmud was completed, and the founders of christianity (jews) were accustomed to the “Oral Law”. So christians had all the chances to ‘steal’ the “Oral Law”, and muslims to steal the Talmud.
And to say that the Talmud is the exact explanations of the Tanakh that were given originally, is like the catholic church saying that their teachings today are exactly the the teachings first christians were taught, yet I'm 100% sure that their teachings have changed considerably in time. This is only my skepticism.

part 2 follows. don't reply yet.

[muman613]

All you are saying is that you have doubts, you don't bring any proof of your position.

There are proofs that the Oral law had to be given at Sinai... There is proof that the Torah has not been changed {as a matter of fact there is a commandment (one of the 613) that man can not add nor subtract from the Torah}... There are Torah scrolls which have survived for 1000s of years and they are not different than the Torah scroll we read today.

The other religions rejected the Oral law and thereby are unable to fulfill the commandments because the Torah does not explain how to fufill commandments, only that the commandment exists {witness the commandments for Tzit-Tzits, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Sukkot, Shabbat, etc.}...

If you are truly interested you should study, not simply say that because other religions say something that it is the same as with Judaism. Judaism existed for 1000+ years before Christianity deviated from Hashems word.

[Zenith]

You sent a link to http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
Somewhere it says:

Hadrian dies in 139 C.E and with his death came an improvement in the treatment of the Jewish community in Israel. During a period of relative quiet, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi managed to befriend the Roman emperors who succeeded Hadrian, particularly Marcus Aurelius (161-180 C.E.). Writes historian Rabbi Berel Wein in his Echoes of Glory (p. 224):
"Providentially, in the course of the Parthian war, Marcus Aurelius met Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi], and they became friends and eventually confidants . Marcus Aurelius consulted with his friend in Judah on matters of state policy as well as on personal questions.(1)

As much as you may like this story, it sounds to me as if a muslim had said that (we know they believe both Moses and Jesus preached Islam) some great imam in the 2nd century was the best friend of the Roman Emperor and they discussed personal matters and that the roman emperor finally converted to Islam :|. Maybe it is easy for you, because you are accutomed to that teaching, maybe you were born with it (indoctrinated with it = believing it was true before asking questions), but I was not, and nor stories about “great jews” fascinate me. That story extolls Yehudah HaNasi as orthrodox/catholic christians extoll their ‘saints’ and muslims extoll Muhammud.

He gathered together all the traditions, enactments, and interpretations and expositions of every position of the Torah, that either come down from Moses, out teacher, or had been deduced by the courts in successive generations.

So not all from Talmud is what was said to Moses by God. And the traditions, interpretations and expositions that have been understood/deduced by generations may not be 100% correct, right? Or, how much can you put your trust in man?

This decentralization of Torah authority and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.

Although I did not read the Mishna, as I’ve noticed, scriptures go like this: they are understood in a certain manner, something that becomes the tradition/culture, even though the scripture itself may teach otherwise. For instance, look at the catholics who pray to sculptures and in the same time agree with “The ten commandments”. But the “understanding of the bible” is given by lots of ‘saints’ (which were, maybe among others, commentators) who tell how they should be understood (and catholics are not the only ones who do that).
And I think that the inability to form a unity, a culture (where a standard could have been forced upon people), not necesarily/only already known facts, led to differences between their beliefs/interpretations. That’s how I believe that it didn’t happen before they were spread out (or at least, that much):

This decentralization of Torah authority [that is, there was no unity anymore, rabbis were spread]and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.

By the way, I think both agree that in Jesus’ time, there was a sect/party who called themselves (or were called by others) saducees and another who were called pharisees. They were a unity, yet, they had different views/understanding of the same scripture. And if that happened then, it must surely have happened even before, so finally, there was no “one unique understanding” that was preserved through ages, but different understandings of different people. And if some people gather all the info and try to get to a consensus, they might have (my opinion, great odds) left out some good understandings and preserve some wrong understandings.

The situation of the Jews in Babylon was much more stable and the rabbis in Babylon had considerably more time to edit and explain the subject matter.

That is, how they understood them, however they understood them. There is no way we can tell that they were right in everything, even though all that gathered reached a consensus.

The Talmud is more than just an application of the details of the Jewish law as expounded in the Mishnah. It's the encyclopedia of all Jewish existence.

Which most surely is not what God told Moses, but teachings that have been kept by generations about the past. There are also legends in countries about their past, which most surely were believed (some may still be believed), so the only thing you can do is put your whole trust in many generations of men, that none was wrong and non fabled.

This information was vital to the Jewish people because Jewish law was NEVER applied by reading a sentence in the Torah and executing it to the letter. Take for example, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." It was NEVER Jewish law that if someone blinded you, that you should go and blind him. What is the good of having two blind people? It was always understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not a life for an eye) and 2) that it means the value of an eye for the value of the eye, referring to monetary damages. Thus, the Talmud presented the written and oral tradition together.

(emphasis by me)
Despite you dislike to hear it, I have another view on this matter.
1.   You can’t prove that it was never applied/understood like that.
2.   Actually, if one wealthy man blinds you and pays you a some of money which some consider “the price of your eye” is like myself blinding you and give you 5 dollars. That’s because you cannot buy an eye, nor can money replace the eye, and money cannot replace what you could have done with the eye you lost. and even, for a wealthy man, that price may be less than money he spends in a day. And I don’t know how fair that is.
I’ll ask you a question now: in Leviticus 24:17 it is written:
“And if a man strikes down any human being he shall be put to death.”
Now, what is the good of having two dead people? Shouldn’t it be understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not an eye for a life) and 2) that it means the value of a human being for the value of the human being, referring to the payment in money (i.e. to his relatives)?

The reason why the rabbis argued about things that may not have any application to everyday life was to try to get to truth in an abstract way – to understand the logic and to extract the principle. These rabbis were interested in knowing what reality is and in doing the right thing. Reality is what Judaism is all about -- the ultimate reality being God.

That suggests that there are more ways one can get to the truth, and may even mean that it is the same taking it abstract as taking it literal, which is impossible (smth like, however you understand it, it is ok).
Of course, everybody is interested in knowing “what reality is and in doing the right thing”, only that people find each a different reality and are doing many different things which they call “right” things. “try to get to truth in an abstract way” is not uncommon and it means to “play around with words”. That’s how NIV translation of the Bible ‘understood what the author actually meant’ and wrote in 1 Chronicles 20.3 “and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this to all the Ammonite towns” and many other places where they sought to get ‘what the author meant when he said that’, because, from their understanding, it seems that the author was not capable to write what he meant. Muslims also take their qur’an ‘in a symbolic way’, thus giving the qur’anic verses totally different meanings. And worst of all, my opinion, is that one gets to an understanding and forces to everybody else his own view/understanding (something that everybody does), so the others don’t have the ‘right’ to judge for themselves and deny them, because they are already “heavenly words”. Take for instance christian orthodoxes, in which they already have the “understandings” given by saints, and priests, and that “understanding” and those words are considered “the very commandments and will of God”.

And these rabbis were wise enough to know that a day would come when the principles established by getting to the core kernel of truth would have far reaching implications.

Actually, there is no way to check that they thought about that, but they are extolled to that high knowledge that they knew too much and were too wise to be doubted they got to ANY wrong conclusion.
Yet, I read in Jeremiah 8

“7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming; but My people know not the ordinance of the LORD. 8 How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes. 9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?”

(http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1108.htm)
It is said that they have rejected the word of the Lord, yet they considered themselves wise because of the law (word) of the Lord. How that? And the work of the scribes was in vain, because the wisdom that “is in them” is nothing to the Lord. And they did not know the ordinance of the Lord, although they had the books and the scribes who were working on them (by the context, I suppose it is not only about copying the books for preservation, but… probably even comments and interpretations).
if you see I understood wrong, I expect you to point out.

part 3 follows.

[Zenith]

From
http://www.torahanytime.com/rabbi_singer_oral_law_1_mp3.html
I listened to all of it, because my first language is not english it was a bit hard to understand some things he said, I used “…” where I didn’t know what he said:

“If we want to know how to perform the written Torah, how to perform what it says, that’s what the Oral Torah tells us. As an example, let’s say today we picked out the today’s New York Times, … and we began to cut away all the headlines, we cut all the headlines out of the newspaper, and on a fresh piece of paper we scotchtaped all the headlines, one beneath the other. That’s what the written Torah would be like, all we have is we’d have the headlines but it really doesn’t tell us a whole lot about how to do it, how to perform it, what do we do? ”

That what he said is odd. You know, chrstian orthodox and catholics say a bit the same about the Tanakh, a kind of “very, very basics and very vague”, that it is not enough, and is quite ignored in the favour of the teachings of the ‘saints’, which are that many in number and a lot of text that they don’t even have the time for the Bible itself (of which, I think Tanakh is mostly ignored). But I think that even the most important thing is ignored, while the highlight is on the other books, which explain how you should understand the text.
About newspaper headlines: what is the good in reading the newspaper headlines? Shouldn’t one rather read the newspaper text? If so, then the newspaper headline is useless. Or, should one read a crypted text, if, because it is crypted, cannot be understood, or he should read the “explanation of the text” instead?

“The first reason is simply that christianity could not in any way embrace a body of divinly inspired literature that they did not have access to.” – how do you know it is a divinly inspired literature? I read above that they used their wisdom to get to a consensus and understand things. As I understood – without reading the Talmud – is that they did not even claim that “God said to me/us: go and do that!”, so that, if God said that to them, their work is to be trusted. Otherwise, it’s a man’s work.

Also, the author also said somewhere that the rabbies that made the Talmud were not anti-spiritual to “add things to God’s word” (as it is forbidden, commandment written in Deuteronomy). However, I don’t believe that this story is like muslims say about jews/christians, and said “ok… now, let’s change the Bible!” and started a project, “Changing of the Bible”. They [the jews] needed only to receieve themselves some erroneous teachings as “Oral Torah” (or, “there was always this teaching”), and all they did, they might have done with the thought that what they did was good. Some teachings might have started as simple understandings/views of some people, but they came to be understood as “God’s word”. There may also be deeds and rituals that started as some “teachings of the elders”, or just some people considering them to be that “it is good to do that”, but after some time, their value began to grow in time, and finally to be understood as “God’s ordinance”.

“And there’s a very funny thing you sould know, that when you’re dealing with christianity… it’s never said, but it’s understood that somehow, in the christian eye, in the christian view, all the rabbies that predated Jesus, all the rabbies that were born before the year 1, they’re somehow ok, and usually the church will say nice things about them. All the rabbies that came after Jesus were all very, very evil, and very corrupt and so on. Because the rabbies before Jesus never had the chance to reject Jesus, … and they’re somehow ok, but all the rabbies that were post Jesus … to christian literature… they are painted in the darkest … .”

I never asked people about this issue, maybe it’s a bit exaggerated, or maybe not most believe that in an exaggerated way. I’ll tell you my opinion: There are always different people, and there are always influences that give birth to sects/parties. If you look to the history of Israel as presented by the Tanakh, you don’t see the people remaining all on the “right path”, but went astray many times (this is how easy it is for any people/group to change from the original).
2 Kings 22.8-13: I suppose they speak about the books of Moses (scroll of Law), if the “Oral Law” was written only in Common Era. So, if God’s written law was so easy to be forgotten, how could the “Oral Law” have been preserved from generation to generation?

He explained why was needed an oral law.
So I have this question: Then why was it needed a written law? (if there was an “Oral Law” that fully explained the written law, and was oral) Then why was then needed to be a very short and vague and cryptic written law?

Now, he explained:

“why do we have an oral law? Why wasn’t all written down?”
“In reality the question is trully a silly question, because you can’t have even a language without an oral law. It’s impossible. Ask a christian who says “I don’t believe in an oral law”, ask them, you know, when you look to these hebrew letters, al they are, the hebrew letters, are consonants. The vowel that you see beneath it, the dots … is that system ancient? No, it’s modern, it was created by the masoretes. Milenia ago, sages came together and they actually recorded how to pronounce these letters, but that wasn’t there originally. So it’s our language, the hebrew language. Is it oral or is it written? In reality it’s oral. How do we know what vowel it goes beneath what consonant? How do you know? It wasn’t handed down with those vowels, everyone knows that.”, “the masoretes, did not create the vowel system, they were simply handing down.”, “you can’t even have a language without an oral law.”

The very important thing is preservation. You can’t have a language without having sounds, yet the language changes in time (i.e. some minor gramatical differences, some different spelling, some differences in how you draw the letters, extern influences, some new neologisms, some words become archaisms, etc.), and if most of it is oral, when you get to the end, you don’t know from where you started.

About the language: he said that a language cannot exist without an oral law. What he said was a bit odd. First off, there are deaf people which – as far as I know – can read and write. So, if everybody was deaf, having all the text, would there be no language? Yet all is preserved in text. And about Hebrew language, there is no way of telling that the same spelling was in the time of masorettes as in the first years of Hebrew’s existence. So there is a great probability that the ‘oral law’ of the Hebrew language has CHANGED in time. And this is the great problem.

Rosetta Stone and Egypt hieroglyphs: there is no oral law here. There is only the understanding of symbols, which, if everyone was deaf, was able to understand, because of greek, the Egyptian hieroglyphs. So no ‘oral’ (sound) is required. Only text. Moreover, without even knowing to read Egyptian, one could learn what something is written in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

about the legal system (loyars, judge, a jury) – now that’s a good idea for me to explain.
It was said that the written law cannot exist without an oral law. Ok, so we have one judge, one jury, two lawyers, a written law, and one accused of breaking the law. If this oral law is correct, then it means that the accused one is always found guilty if guilty, or innocent, if innocent, and that, if guilty, he receives the proper punishment. But that is not true always (or mostly) which means that the oral law is unreliable. That because people use their reasoning for the written law and for the evidences they receive from both parts, and people are… imperfect and thus, unreliable.
This would be translated into scriptural sense as Malachi 2.9 “… according to how you do not keep My ways and [how] you show favoritism in the Torah.” – so it seems they understood/interpreted the Torah(oral law?)  in a way in which they favored people.

“bible prophecy: in the end of the days all the nations will know the true God and they will acknowledge their error – which he added that when the true messiah comes, the nations will set aside their erroneous beliefs and will see that the Jews are right” and it gives as reference the verse Zechariah 8.23 “So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."”
I’ll give you a different view: First, there are many denominations in what is called ‘the religion of Christianity’ (which I’d rather call, many religions – but they are not called so), and my opinion being that most of all ‘Christians’ see things erroneous (maybe 95%+) and the fact that this is not the only existing religion (there are many atheists, muslims, hinduists, etc.) and we do not know how their number will change in time. Second, it is not said that people will get jews and ask from jews the law. Isaiah 2.3 “And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the law come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” – it says that God will teach them, not the jews. Also, in Zechariah 8.22 it is written “And many peoples and powerful nations shall come to entreat the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.” – the target is the place of Jerusalem, not the jews. And the target is the Lord of Hosts, not the jews.
As you might have noticed, I used “law” instead of Torah (as Torah means law), because 1. I believe in the rest of the bible there are teachings and commandments others than the law of Moses (not only commentaries about it) and I believe people need to take heed of them. 2. So you will not understand “Oral Torah”(Talmud) because nowhere is it written in the Bible – as far as I know – that your Talmud is the “Oral Torah”, therefore, it might have nothing to do with it.

It was spoken about this verse:
Lev 26.46 “These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the laws that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses.” – this is how I found translated in http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9927 (yet I heard Thorahs in the audio, which is erroneous because the verse refers to the commandments, not to the books that came to be called so – actually if within the Torah it is written that the itself has been given, then it’s like telling whether this sentence is true or false: “This sentence is false.” = nonsense).

About the fact that the Oral Law is not known to Christians. Sorry, but the Christians are not aware of the Hadiths or many other religious books (even their own). Also, ye and the muslims do not have access to the story of each saint and each teaching of the orthodox Christians or the catholics. So that’s not something astonishing.

another part follows

[Zenith]

EVIDENCE FOR THE ORAL LAW - given by him
About Deuteronomy 29:29 “The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah.”
If that seems clear to you that you always had and will have all the teachings of God, this contradicts the Bible, because it is also written that Israel had gone astray in its history and lost its access to the law (see 2 Kings 22.8 ) and the people of Israel were not taught the law because of evil rulers, etc. The solution to this issue seems to be the following (which I also found translated in some places): “forever” does not mean what we usually understand of “forever”:
Isaiah 32.14-15 “14 For the palace shall be forsaken; the city with its stir shall be deserted; the mound and the tower shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; 15 Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.” – forever until?
Eccl 1.4 “4. A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth endures forever.” While Isaiah 51.6 and Psalm 102.26-27 say that the earth will be destroyed. Forever until?
Also, Exodus 21.6: the slave will actually serve him until death only.

And it gives the example with the Sabbath and “don’t work” thing. And, as there is a capital punishment for that, one must know clearly what “work” means. However, maybe with some exceptions, this does not require a separate law from God in which to explain what “work” means. This is like many Christians who say about everything that it’s cryptic and symbolical and that only they (certain people) can interpret them, and the interpretation is X (here, they claim they are divinely inspired). Everybody does that and doesn’t think of the fact that in Moses’ time, God spoke (i.e. through Moses) to a bunch of simple, uneducated people (I suppose they did not receive education in Egypt’s schools), and they’re deriving all kinds of meanings to simple words that were said in their own language which they already knew and understood, which also contains natural language (i.e. if you tell people “You must not kill” people understand it’s not about killing bugs, and if they also receive the law that they should put to death people whom do X, they don’t get to that confusion to say “I don’t understand anything!” – which, for a robot, should happen). And “work” is not has not a “subjective” meaning, but belongs to natural language (one must be insane to say – and have the conviction that it is so - that by digging all day he rested).

It is said about Exodus 16.29, but it seems some verses from above are also needed:
Exodus 16.25-29 “And Moses said, Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day [which is the] Sabbath on it there will be none. It came about that on the seventh day, [some] of the people went out to gather [manna], but they did not find [any]. The Lord said to Moses, How long will you refuse to observe My commandments and My teachings? See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, on the sixth day, He gives you bread for two days. Let each man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the seventh day” – the issue (and the context) is not ‘getting out of there’, but not going for mana.
Otherwise, it contradicts this: 2 Kings 4.23 “And he said, "Why are you going to him today; it is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath." And she said, "It's all right."” Also by Ezec 46.1-9. By the way, as far as I know, people (jews) used to go to synagogues in the Sabbath day, which makes me believe it was not forbidden to get out of the house.

About shofar and blowing – he seems to be right, but that doesn’t prove all Talmud to be reliable.
About Daniel and not eating gentile-cooked food – maybe the food and the wine were sacrificed to idols (smth like 1 Corinthians 8.7)
By the way, do you have (or still have) a law such as explained by Acts 10.28 and Acts 11.3? (I refer to eating on the same table with a gentile).

About praying 3 times a day: maybe the tradition of praying 3 times a day was taken from Daniel’s custom, who did so. By the law, he was required to pray (perhaps that is the reason those asked the king the term of 30 days of not praying – otherwise, if he was required by the law to pray 3 times a day, they might have thought of a much shorter term, as two or three days).

About strangled animals (Acts 15.20), indeed, it is not written in the Tanakh.
Also about how to slaughter an animal (deut 12.21) I don’t think it’s written anywhere in the Tanakh.

[Zenith]

VARIATIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS - that he talked about

About the fact that there are much more variants of the NT than of the Tanakh: my understanding of this is that:
1.   There are much more manuscripts of the NT than of the Tanakh (as far as I know); If Tanakh would have had too many manuscripts, maybe the number of variants would be higher.
2.   Tanakh and the jewish culture began (with Moses) with a small number of people (compared to Christianity), in a compact place (all were in one place) – compared to christians, who were spread out in different locations, without a leader to be always with them to teach them and God punishing (i.e. with fire from heaven) everyone that tried to turn things his way; Christians were more exposed to outside influences (like Gnosticism, other philosophical and religious influences) from the beginning. This would affect the preservation of the text by various people.

These, my opinion, are the reasons of the many variants, which are – as far as I know – more in the early periods than in the later (when the Church should have used its authority to preserve the text as it was – and even so I don’t trust that the church leaders (i.e. popes) did not ever change anything).

So, I don't think that there is an evidence in the number of variants that one is holy and other not. I'd like to have all the manuscripts once (when I would also be able to understand what they say) to see exactly what everyone says, instead of having someone interpreting for me what it is and giving me a compilation "this is the truth!". For instance, variations like a verse or a part of a verse repeated in other place (i.e. from exodus to deuteronomy, from the ten commandments) doesn't scare you like "no one can know what it was written originally". And there are other things alike.

[Zenith]

Quoting from your posts...

About the Sabbath day:

You THINK, but you don't know.  Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing?  Well, that is precisely our claim.

Well, not necessarily. If I had seen the God of the Bible in Israel as it was in the biblical times (prophets, supernatural things, people (or certain prophets) to ask God and Him to answer, literally), then I would have undoubtedly believe jews know. And I think we are all after-the-fact.

And about keeping the oral law into memory, it sounds like the muslims claim that their surahs were learnt (from hearing) and were much later written 100% correctly (which also seems to me impossible).

About the cloths of the priests:

Yes, that is certainly logical to expect.  However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim?  This can be in many aspects.  And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not?

Well, the cloths are clearly not self-understandable from the Bible. And I think it’s impossible to know which from the Talmud are and which are not from the laws given by God through Moses. If you give me an absurd interpretation of a clear verse in the Bible I will clearly say that that was not given by God through Moses (which, if it’s wrong, it should probably mean that my logic is absurd).

For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...

For instance, this is an absurd interpretation to me.
First off, Moses could not have prohibited turning the light on/off because there was no electricity then. Second, you do not start fire by turning on the light. Third, I can’t imagine, before the Sabbath day to start turning on the light switch and to attempt to complete turning on the light switch during the Sabbath day. Fourth, if a gentile had a jew as slave, and he would have forced him to move the couch all the Sabbath day inside the house, would the jew call it that he rested in the Sabbath day?