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

As we know, I am a Karaite Jew, this means that I do not believe in the rabbinical interpretations, rabbinical Commentaries, or the Oral Torah. Though I accept that they contain a certain level of wisdom, they are not part of the Tanakh, and never should be considered as such. There are many reasons why I disapprove of and do not believe in the rabbinical interpretations and commentaries. Reason #1; The Torah says not to add anything to it: Deuteronomy 4:2: In order to obey the mitzvot of ADONAI your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it. Proverbs 30:6: Don"t add anything to his words; or he will rebuke you, and you be found a liar. These are verses that clearly indicate one thing: You are never to add or subtract from the Tanakh, this goes in general, not just to add or subtract laws as is said in Deuteronomy 4:2, but is later clarified in Proverbs 30:6 that this applies to all of G-d"s words. Even if you are not altering his words, you are still adding to them. Reason #2; The Tanakh is flawless, so rabbinical interpretations are obsolete: G-d"s word is perfect, without flaw, so rabbinical interpretations and commentaries are obsolete, we don"t need them because G-d"s word can stand on its own. 2nd Samuel 22:31: "As for God, his way is perfect: The L-RD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5: "Every word of G-d"s is flawless; he shields those taking refuge in him." Saying that G-d"s flawless Tanakh is somehow in need of rabbinical interpretation borders on blaspheme, because we know that G-d is perfect, and so is his Tanakh, it is not in need of any rabbinical interpretation. Rabbinical interpretations are obsolete because any purpose they claim to serve the Tanakh is not in need of, and neither are we. Reason #3; G-d did not Give the Israelites the rabbinical interpretations: As we all know, G-d gave Moshe the Tanakh from Mount Sinai in front of 6,000,000 Jews, only the Tanakh, not the rabbinical interpretations or commentaries, those came along later, and these were not given by G-d. This means three things, a.That we do not need the rabbinical interpretations/commentaries, otherwise G-d would have given us them also, so they are obsolete. b.That the rabbinical interpretations/commentaries were not inspired by G-d, and hence should not be paired alongside that which WAS given by G-d. c.That pairing the writings and wisdom of men alongside the writings and wisdom of G-d Almighty borders on Idol Worship, because you are placing men at the position of G-d. REBUTTALS: First of all, I do not *deny* the Oral Torah, I only believe that oral laws are far less reliable than written law, for the following reason: Say we had a written Torah, and it was copied down exactly for 5 generations. Say people were to question if their Torah was the same Torah as 5 generations ago. How can we verify? Well, you go and get a copy of the Torah from 5 generations ago, compare it to a recent copy, then we know that it is the same Torah. The same cannot be said about the Oral Torah, if there were a rabbi that memorized the oral Torah, it was passed down for 5 generations. If people begin to suspect that it might not be the same Torah as 5 generations ago, we cannot verify, by then, the original rabbi would be dead! Karaite Hypocrisy? Understanding that a language with no spaces would be virtually impossible to read does not make you automatically the highest law in the land in regards to G-d"s Tanakh, that would he G-d himself. Oral Laws obvious existence: First off, as you may have seen with my argument above, G-d"s Tanakh is perfect and does not need a rabbi to explain it. -Things like this should be obvious to people, I"m sure that G-d would rather have a uncircumcised kid than a circumcised dead person. -This again should be obvious, you don"t need a rabbi to explain what work is, it should be easy, work means something that someone would pay you to do. -It is referring to the month that G-d spoke it on, and seeing as though they just came out of Egypt you would assume the Egyptian months. -He was only supposed to build a temple, there is no definite design that only would have worked as a temple! -I do have interest in reading your examples, the problem is that they are flawed. Subjective interpretation? I don"t know about you, but I for one believe that G-d, and hence his Tanakh, is 100% flawless, and hence no Ambiguities, these are all just misinterpretations. There is no verse in the Torah that says something not easily interpreted. We are all running off of the same Tanakh here my friend! Wisdom of the Sages: Firstly, the sages were by no doubt wise, but this does not put their writings in the place of "Holy documents," at most this classifies them as "apocrypha." This is not wisdom, this is scientific knowledge, there is a difference, as a matter of fact for this reason 1/3 of the fish in the Ocean are going to die because- why? Well our scientific knowledge advanced faster than our wisdom, so we had the scientific knowledge to drop two bombs on Japan and cause all this radiation poisoning, but we didn"t have the WISDOM to know NOT TO. -Simple; they came from ancient Egypt, which had substantial scientific knowledge, including the wisdom not to kill babies- until the Exodus, but generally this was prohibited, at 2000 BC Egypt went downhill and regressed to Pharaoh"s like Akhenaten who wanted to be worshiped like G-d. Keep in mind, the Israelites were able to live in Egypt for 430 years before they had any issues. -Last I checked, this was a revelation given to a prophet that was handed down orally rather than written. -We know that Ancient Egypt had substantial astronomical knowledge, this is most likely where it originated, and there is always the interpretation that it was referring to the water in the atmosphere. Regardless of their scientific knowledge, this does not make these sages the highest authority in regards to G-d"s Tanakh.