The Torah we have today is the same as it was in the past.

In C1, con shows how in Judges, the city of Laish is renamed Dan after it is conquered. Then con proceeds to use this as a justification to show that Genesis 14:14 cannot have an origin before Laish was conquered and named Dan. Why this argument is lacking. The Jews in order to make sense of their own text would have labeled the city whatever the current generation would have understood it to mean. Just as no one refers to New York as New Amsterdam because though its only been less than 400 years, no one would have any idea what you are talking about. Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews book 1 chapter 9 states: "AT this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia" Yet during the time period Josephus is referring to, there was no area referred to as "Asia" though we all know what Josephus is talking about. The point of the scripture is to give a geographic understanding for as to where Abraham traveled to for people to understand. There also is another argument here. The city of Dan recorded in Genesis 14:14 isn't necessarily the city Con wants it to be. There are numerous instances of cities mentioned that simply don't even exist anymore throughout the biblical text. There are also multiple names for various places. For example the land of Egypt is also referred to as Mizraim and Ham. If Con can demonstrate the city above has to be the former "Laish", feel free to refer to my previous argument here. As to the remarks of Gen 36:31, I give the following: Genesis 35:11King James Version (KJV) And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; Deuteronomy 17:14-15King James Version (KJV) 14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Gen 36:31 is merely a prophetic saying from the same author who also wrote the two books listed above. If the author is expecting Kings to come from Abraham and also says directly to the people of Israel that they will put a king over themselves, I'm confused as to what manner it would be contradictory for him to make a statement like "before any king reigned over the Israelites" especially in light that hes personally expecting a king if not multiple kings to come. C:2 Con inquires as to which version of the text I would put my backing behind. That would be the MT. I will let Cons own 3rd source do the talking for me on this one. "But some Bible critics side with the Masoretic version, citing it as older and, indeed, more authentic. Referring to a principal of textual criticism called lectio difficilior potior, which states that a harder reading of a text is preferred to an easier reading, Yeshiva University"s Aaron Koller said some scholars believe the Samaritan Torah"s text, which presents fewer interpretive problems, proves that it had been tampered with. "Some scholars believe someone took an original version of the Torah and simplified it to the Samaritan version," he explained. "It"s hard to believe a difficult reading of a text is original, because why would someone change a text to make it unclear? Rather, when a text is simplified, it"s easier to believe that the text was altered in order to make it simpler." [1] Also "Koller noted that the consensus view held by most Bible scholars is that the Masoretic version of the Torah is the older, original version. The structural changes of the Samaritan Torah give reason to believe it"s been changed, he said, but that should not stop people from studying it. Both should be studied, he said, to understand the history of interpretations of the Torah"a book that continues to unfold with meaning as time goes on. "Outside of the Samaritan community, most believe the Samaritan Torah was an editorial revision of the Masoretic text,"' [1] Critics and bible scholars agree the Masoretic version is older. Its reading is more difficult where as the Samarian text seems to fill in certain gaps and add things, just as con kindly pointed out in Deuteronomy 32:43. Which speaking of this particular passage. I would be interested in seeing in what matter any of these additions constitute Cons own outlined "major textual variations" I think too it makes more sense to stick with the text of the rabbis. Using Cons 3rd source again: "Ulrich said after the destruction of the Second Temple, the people split into three groups, each with their own text: The rabbis took the Masoretic text for their own, the Samaritans took theirs, and the early Christians used much of a different version called the Septuagint"a Masoretic version translated into Greek in the 2nd century BCE"in what later become the Christian Bible." [1] If Con is interested in defending the Septuagint or holds that is a better translation and line for the Hebrew bible, I will be more than willing to show why it isn't. It will be up to Con to show where the Masoretic line has been broken, inconsistency's within the Masoretic text of the Torah over time and where it is disqualified as having no possible roots to the original writings given its done by a people that have a habit of keeping around something like the Biella scroll, a 800 year old scroll to read from in just their daily service and the practice of scroll keeping/writing I have outlined in argument one. Thank you 1. http://www.tabletmag.com...