If I reply to this will you be around to defend it or was this cut and paste cut and run?

If of course you're sticking around to defend it... welcome. 

Hi Anders,

I have nothing but intelligent answers, so there is no problem there.    I'm frankly just glad you're here.  I saw that you have pasted the same article in numerous places and I didn't want to invest time on it if it was just spam.  It isn't personal... it is just something that happens from time to time.

About your comments.

Yes, we agree that the Tanakh is a foundation for discussion.

I do not accept your assertion that the current Christian translators are proof that you need to know Hebrew in order to read the Tanakh- implying that these translators do not know Hebrew.  Obviously, they know Hebrew in order to translate from it.  I think if you want to say A.  "Let us agree that a grasp of the original language is crucial in properly interpreting it" then I am with you.  I can agree with that.  If however you mean, B.  "Only people who agree with me and know Hebrew really know Hebrew" then I cannot go along with that.

I don't want you to misunderstand me.  I understand that Jewish practitioners have a special insight into the Hebrew language, especially orthodox Jews who take their religion very seriously.  However, it would not be right to demand that I only use sources that agree with you in order to make my case.  Nor is it right to assert that sources that don't agree with you ipso facto demonstrate that they are not competent.

So, besides just 'Scholars in leading universities like 'Barrie Wilson' what about Scholars in leading universities like Gleason Archer? 

I would like to respond to this:

"For you to prove that Christianity is correct and that it has displaced Judaism,"

Christians do not believe that Christianity has displaced Judaism.  Proving Christianity correct would actually require showing that it is a continuation and extension of Judaism.

Other thoughts after you've replied to this.

"You mention: