Karaite Judaism (Pro) vs. Rabbinical Judaism (Con):

Sorry, I will respond formally for the rest of the debate. OBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION: No, the Tanakh is very clear on all of its meanings, but it seems to be that I will need to demonstrate this, let"s examine this very simple verse: Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth." Subjective interpretation? Absolutely not, not one of us here will try and say that this verse means anything other than just that- G-d created the heavens and the earth, how more objective could it get? How much of us would sit around and say "no- G-d didn"t create the heavens and the earth! It was Lord Krishna!" I can do the same with any other verse, to me- your argument seems as nonsensical as the following; Deuteronomy 14:18 says not to eat pork- hmm, what could this mean? This verse is so ambiguous! We need a bunch of rabbis to *properly* define what "don"t eat pork" means! Also, Karaism is not *recent* it is the original form of Judaism, but regardless, there is many proofs that I can bring up that will disprove Rabbanism, I really wish I brought them up in the beginning of the debate, but here is hard evidence that there was no Oral Law that was pass" down through Moshe; 1, Moshe wrote down everything that G-d told him, which means that one of it was oral; Exodus 24:4: "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said." Joshua 8:34-35: "After this, he read all the words of the Torah, the blessing and the curse, according to everything written in the book of the Torah. 35 There was not a word of everything Moshe had ordered that Y"hoshua did not read before all Isra"el assembled, including the women, the little ones and the foreigners living with them." As you can see, everything that G-d told Moshe was written down, none of it Oral, and thus, there can be no Oral Torah! 2, If there was an Oral Torah, it would have been forgotten; During the reign of King Josiah, the Jews forgot all of their tradition, and hence, if there was an Oral Torah, it would have been forgotten too. Judaism only survived because of the Written Torah. Anyway, I could go on and onbut these two are the best points, let"s continue with rebuttals. FORGETTNG THE ORAL LAW AND BROKEN TELEPHONE: First off, I never implied that there was an Oral Law; I only said that IF there was an Oral Law, which there is not, it is IMPOSSIBLE that it is the same Oral Law as 2000 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago as you claim. Next off, if there was no Oral Law, we would still be able to understand the Tanakh, the Tanakh isn"t a abstract art work that can be interpreted in many ways, it is a simple SUBJECTIVE book that is very easy to understand. A 3rd grader could do it! Anyone who can read could do it! Thirdly, you assume that G-d would create a highly ambiguous book, which can only be understood correctly with an Oral Torah which we cannot verify would be highly nonsensical and G-d would not do such idiocy. Fourthly, this verse has no relevance to the Oral Law, if you look at the actual word for words, the word is דָּבָר, da va, which could be more properly translate to an utterance. So this was actually referring to the Shema. Fithly, the Oral Law is not something that you can pick up and compare to another copy, unlike the written law where you can inspect every symbol and word which could change the entire meaning of the Law. Rather, the Oral Law translates to idea and concepts, simplified like all human memories, and also like all human memories, they are extremely unreliable. Furthermore, unless someone went to synagogues around the world and got all their rabbis to write the Oral Torah down then we compared notes, this statement is completely false. DO NT ADD I am referring to all of it; everything that rabbis decided should be added next to G-ds Tanakh. Nextly, I am not "interpreting" anything; we aren"t in an art museum, let alone subjectively. When there is a verse that says that if you add to the words of G-d you will be found a liar, there is nothing else it could mean. DO NOT ADD= DO NOT ADD! Unless you can provide a different meaning to the passage that is as relevant as mine, your argument is purely claims Thirdly, there is a significant difference between the prophet"s books and the rabbis books; 1.The Prophets never added to the Tanakh, they only wrote separate books that were compiled into the Nevi"im. 2.The Nevi"im never says anything that alters the meaning of any verses of the Tanakh. 3.The books of the prophets came from G-d and were given through prophets of G-d, the Oral Torah was given by some sages which probably didn"t exist until after the reign of king Josiah, and is passed on through rabbis. FLAWNESSNESS Yes you were, you were arguing that the Tanakh was flawed, specifically that it had ambiguities. In any case, logic is not subjective, in fact it is by definition the antonym of subjective. OBJECTIVE INTRPRETATION Number one, I have demonstrated that the Tanakh and ALL OF THE MITZVOT are completely objective and simple, provide one Mitzvot that is ambiguous. Number two, we are reading out of the same Tanakh, we shouldn"t come up with anything different; "G-d creates the earth, Adam and Eve sin, they get kicked out, the earth turns evil, there"s a flood, Noah and his families survive." Subjective still? No, absolutely not, that"s what it says, there"s no question that this is what happened, there is no "interpret" here, that"s what it says. If I and my brother were put in separate rooms, we would come out whit the same story, the EXACT SAME STORY. SAGE"S WISDOM False, this was all known by the Egyptians, see here: http://www.starteachastronomy.com... Also, you are mixing two things that I said together, the thing about trillions of start came from a prophet because it was derived from G-d talking to someone; I said that the knowledge of the water was just them knowing about the Tanakh"s incredible knowledge. In regards to a baby being a human at 40 days of pregnancy, this was discovered by Aristotle, and there was no reference to this before, hence, it was integrated into the Oral Torah at the time of Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org...