The Torah has no Contradictions

[passer...@gmail.com]

Samaritan Torah that is. The Jewish/Christian version is an edited copy and hard to do all that editing without introducing a few trivial contradictions. As you go back in time, the Jewish Torah becomes the Samaritan Torah. The Dead Sea Scrolls were censored and kept secret for half a century, and only then leaked without permission, because despite being the Jewish version of the time, they are as close to the Samaritan version as they are to the Masoretic version they are talking about below. About 5000 characters are different in both. This despite certain parts being completely different in the two, different 10 Commandments for instance. So other than those clear important disagreements, the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the Samaritan than the Jewish/Christian Torah. THAT is why they were censored for 50 years...

The Samaritan Pentateuch

...Consistency: This is probably the main distinguishing feature of the Samaritan version, and I suspect some of the other categories I discuss will be included in it. The Samaritan version shows much greater internal consistency than the Masoretic version. And by this I mean not that the plot hangs together better, but that when, for example, an event happens in the text which is then later recounted by someone also in the text, the re-telling and the event are often verbatim copies.

So, for example, one of the most consistent and noticeable differences in the Book of Exodus has to do with the warnings given to Pharoah. In the Masoretic text, we sometimes read “God said to Moses, ‘Say unto Pharoah thus and such....’” in preparation for a plague, and then the text skips ahead to the actual performance of the plague without recounting that Moses did, indeed, relay the message. Or conversely, we read of Moses delivering a warning to Pharoah about an upcoming plague without ever reading that he was commanded to do so by God. The Samaritan text is more consistent: when God tells Moses to relay a message, we then read that Moses relayed the message—in the same words—and then initiated the plague. When Moses warns Pharoah, we read beforehand that God had told him to give that very warning. When the Israelites say to Moses in Exodus 14:12, “Didn't we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’?” in the Samaritan version they did, indeed, say those exact words while still in Egypt, in Exodus chapter 6. The Masoretic version has them saying other things in a similar vein in Egypt, but never exactly that. And presumably if the Bible is considered infallible, how could it say that they said it if they didn't?

The Samaritan Torah is therefore longer, in terms of letter or word count, than the Masoretic version. Whenever a story is retold, whenever something is referred to in the past (e.g., the events of the desert being recounted in the book of Deuternomy), the Samaritan version consistently has the event and the retelling in harmony.

Grammar: This is a different kind of consistency. Samaritan Hebrew grammar is not quite the same as Masoretic Hebrew grammar, and their pronunciation and vocalization are totally different (though that's probably best saved for another article). The Samaritan version is often grammatically neater (and stylistically somewhat later in the development of the language) than the Masoretic version. Similarly, where the Masoretic version has verbs or adjectives in the wrong gender in many places, the Samaritan version has appropriate gender agreement. There are also consistent differences related to the grammatical differences between Samaritan Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. So some verbs are conjugated into different forms in the two versions (e.g. וישתחו, “and he bowed” is written וישתחוי in the Samaritan version; instead of צו it has צוי, and a few others. At least in the version I was working from; others have וישתחוה).

There are some grammar differences in the pronouns, some of which affect the spellings of other words. For example, in Samaritan pronunciation, the third-person plural masculine pronoun הם is pronounced imma, and so the Masoretic spelling המה would be redundant, and is not found in the Samaritan version. And the dreadfully confusing spelling of the feminine pronoun היא in the Masoretic text, (sometimes) spelling it identically with the masculine pronoun הוא, is not also found in the Samaritan text (thus providing another example of the consistency of the Samaritan text). The second-person feminine singular past tense conjugation and pronoun in the Samaritan pronunciation preserve the old Hebrew -i ending (found in a few places even in Masoretic texts), and so are sometimes spelled with a final י. This can occasionally be confusing, since it might look at first glance like a first-person singular verb!..."

http://web.meson.org/religion/torahcompare.php

I DEFY anyone to find a contradiction in the Samaritan Torah.

[Tim Anderson]

Be still, my beating heart.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No shortage of contradictions in human evolution "science". They've been deliberately lying for so long they can't tell the truth if they wanted to. Every lie requires two more lies to cover up.

Neanderthal shares approximately 100% of it's GENES with Europeans.

Australians share approximately 93% of their GENES with Sub-Saharan Africans.

Neanderthals aren't the same exact species? They are GENEtically inferior?

The first 50 years after the discovery of the bones, these moron evolution "scientists" said Neanderthal could swing from the trees with it's toes. That it's toes could grab branches like a monkey. Their toes are identical to yours.

Then they said Neanderthals were to stupid to even talk. So non-human that it would be like having sex with a chimp and expecting offspring.

Then some actual scientists sequenced the nuclear DNA and turns out Neanderthal GENES are the same GENES as European GENES. 100%. 100,000 times closer than Australians and Africans. So, after all those racist pig lies, now exposed, what can the downbreeds do?

Keep lying.

[Tim Anderson]

I assume you can distinguish an allele from a gene.

In any case, if two populations shared only 93 per cent of their genes, it would be extremely unlikely that individuals from the two lineages could successfully interbreed. It is manifestly true that Australian aboriginals are able to have children with sub-Sahara Africans (I used to live next door to such a family).

Torah may not contradict itself, but that is a separate question from whether or not it contradicts reality.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Fantastic!!!! A forum atheist just admitted it's stinking fetid ignorant that Australians share approximately 93% of their GENES with Africans.

It doesn't know what a Gene is and has no clue about sequencing Denisovan and Australian nuclear DNA. In other words it's now proven totally stinking ignorant of human evolution, period.

Here's your medicine...

The archaic Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA that persists in modern individuals from the Pacific islands of Melanesia could be a source of new information about early human history, according to a report published this Thursday in the Early Release edition of Science...

...Denisovan DNA could make up between 2 percent to 4 percent of the genome of a native Melanesian...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160317150805.htm

They can't do math, they can't do science and on an evolution forum, they don't know what a gene is or any of the fascinating news from the sequencing of Neanderthal/Denisovan/Etc. nuclear DNA.

Gotta' all be ex-fundies, all home schooled by those that were home schooled.

[Tim Anderson]

Stop equivocating between "DNA", "DNA sequence", "gene" and "genome". On which unit are you basing the percentage similarities? The article you cite is clear that it isn't "genes" that are being counted. If you seriously mean there are archaic genes present in some modern human lineages that are completely absent in other lineages (the arhcaic gene, not the archaic allele), your argument makes no sense in the light of biological and reproductive fact.

Of course if all you mean is that there are archaic forms of some genes in some lineages and more derived forms of the same genes in other lineages, then your point is, shall I say, unremarkable.

[passer...@gmail.com]

***###GENES###*** I'm basing them on ***###GENES###***.

Lord, give me the patience.

If you had a room temperature IQ, if you had an elementary school education, much less running your ignorant mouth on an evolution forum, you'd know that if they were talking about base pairs, a chimp is closer than 4%.

An evolution forum, an EVOLUTION forum, and they all and I mean ALL are totally and I mean TOTALLY ignorant of not only the ground shaking news from sequencing Neanderthal/Denisovan/Etc. nuclear DNA, the stunningly fetid ignorant buffoons don't even know what a damn ***###GENE###*** is.

It's just amazing. Where do you guys come from, it's all ex-fundies, right?

[Tim Anderson]

Base pairs are not "genes". What are you talking about?

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's a damn shame, all the fascinating news about human evolution coming out because of the sequencing of the nuclear DNA of our ancestors and ourselves, and no one here has a foggy notion about it. They aren't only totally ignorant of the percentages of GENES in common the various groups, they, amazingly, don't even know what a GENE is.

Well, maybe a Christian interested in human genetics will wander by. But they usually have much better things to do. Things that are far more important to the human condition, like the words of Jesus.

[Tim Anderson]

Yes, the analysis of relationships between hominin lineages is fascinating. Particularly the information that modern lineage genomes might tell us about how humans came to their modern state. And how long it took. Apparently about 200,000 years.