The Belief that Sikhism is Based on True Prophecy is Contrary to Judaism

I will endeavor to counter-rebuttal. "We would know that they are lying because of some very specific instructions as to how to know when someone is genuinely a prophet from various verses: Deuteronomy 18:22: "When a prophet speaks in the name of Adonai, and the prediction does not come true " that is, the word is not fulfilled " then Adonai did not speak that word. The prophet who said it spoke presumptuously; you have nothing to fear from him. " Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. " Jeremiah 28:9: "The prophet which prophesied of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him. "" And yet, a question persists. If one stood up in 100 CE and said, "I have a prophecy-- in five hundred years, Jerusalem will be known as BedaBida," my opponent"s reliance on the outcome of the prophecy would forestall judgement on this vision until half a millennium later. This problem is compounded by Jeremiah 18:7-10: 7 At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; 8 but if that nation turn from their evil, because of which I have spoken against it, I repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it. {S} 9 And at one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 but if it do evil in My sight, that it hearken not to My voice, then I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit it. This seems to imply that a genuine prophecy can, indeed, not come to pass-- which disqualifies the outcome from being the arbiter of truth. The lack of the Hebrew word for "prophecy" (Nevuah) in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 presents an answer; the verses in Deuteronomy refer to the sign/omen the prophet gives, but not his prophecy. This fits with Jeremiah 28, where the false prophet, Chananiah ben Azur, performs no sign or omen, which forces Jeremiah to question his prophecy instead. As to why he would be believed in the first place, this was a time when the future of the nation looked grim, and Chananiah ben Azur prophesied of peace and national triumph. A downtrodden people tends to hear what they want to hear, without too much skepticism. "Also, you said that the eradication of Idol Worship was imperminate, but you say that the irradiation of prophets was perminate, so which is it? The verse is referring to something perminate, in which case it has not happened yet or it is imperminate, in which case Guru Nanak could be a prophet, because the eradication of Idol Worship has expired? " My distinction is clearly supported by the text. The destruction of heretofore idolatry was described by the Hebrew word "Achrit". The removal of "the prophets and the spirit of uncleanliness" is described by "A"avir". The different words prompt the different meanings. "Furthermore, no, it is referring specifically to the LAND of Israel; actually, it only says Jerusalem, a specific city, not all of Israel. " Verse 2 says "The land. " If Jerusalem, mentioned in verse 1, was being referenced, the verse would have said "Ha"Ir" (the City). As for the true identity, 'the' land implies a special land (known as "Heh HaYidiah", the Hebrew letter "Heh" being used to imply pre-knowledge of the subject). Thus, the most probable subject is the Land of Israel. "Sages from 500 BCE to 300 CE- One could claim that the sages at the time of Moses had a kind of authority to claim certain things because of their supposed secret message they got from Moses, but not so with these sages. These sages were just common rabbis; they didn"t even claim that they got any secret message from G-d! " The chain of tradition was passed down from generation to generation. In fact, frequently in the Talmud, things are brought down as "Halacha L"Moshe MiSinai" (a law passed down from Moses at Sinai). The claim is that G-d gave an Oral Law to Moses, who transmitted it to Joshua, and so forth (Mishnah Avot 1:1). The reasons for an Oral Law: All the laws of the Torah, while intended literally, also have deeper meaning. The Oral Law is an apparatus where simple laws can be passed down. The Oral Law is not set in stone, and so as new situations arise, the law of how to deal with them can be added in. The Oral Law contains the principles of how to interpret Torah verses-- the Braita of Rabbi Yishmael, found in any Siddur, contains 13 principles. I would also like to shed some light on Karaism. I have been reading the travel letters of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, the greatest of the Mishnah commentators, who lived in the 15th and 16th centuries. Lest one think he is predisposed towards the Rabbinic Jews, here is one description of his of Karaite Jews: "They are more careful than the Rabbinic Jews about refraining from Gentile wine (this sentiment is also expressed in the Talmud). " However, I would like to present another selection, which describes the Karaism he was a witness to: "I saw some of the Karaite commentaries, such as the commentary of Yafet, whom Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra mentions , and the commentary of Rabbi Aharon Kara. The Karaites are constantly composing new interpretations of the Torah. Regarding even the most basic understanding of a Mitzvah (commandment), if a contemporary Karaite sage will reinterpret the simple meaning of the verse, they will change the Mitzvah to conform with his understanding. They do not think that this reflects negatively on either the earlier or later sages. " This is a complete departure from the ideology espoused by Ketuvim, and, assumingly, my opponent as well. There are undeniable ambiguities in Tanach; in fact, G-d would have good reason to plant them there-- so as to facilitate extra study and discussion. A tradition would need to be put forth, to provide the answers. At the end of the day, the Rabbinic tradition dates back the farthest of any claimants-- to at least 300 CE. The main groups of Jews in the Second Temple era were the Rabbanites, also known as Pharisees, and Sadducees, who denied any such tradition. Thus, it is hard to deny the Rabbanites their claim of authenticity. A final note: Regarding the above-mentioned Yefet, known as Yefet ben Ali HaLevi, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "Yefet claims full freedom for the exegete, refusing to admit any authority for the interpretation of the Law; and, although he sometimes uses the thirteen hermeneutic rules laid down in the Mishnah, he denies their authority: they are to be applied, he claims, only when it is not possible to explain the passage literally. Thus, notwithstanding his veneration for Anan ben David, the founder of Karaism, and for Benjamin Nahawandi, he often rejects their interpretations. " I look forward to hearing from my opponent.