Erdogan's Islamo-Centrism

 


In today's news we read  the outrageous claim by Turkey's Islamist President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that it was Muslims who in fact discovered America, prior to Columbus. This Islamo- centrism is an ugly feature of fundamentalism, and the rejection of fact or reason.  Another example is the Palestinian claim that there was never an Israelite Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, where the current occupier happens to be a mosque.

However, this post is not intended to take on Islam or even the Palestinians. It is only using them as an example to compare with the Talmudist rabbis.  The problem being, that the rabbis have a very similar pathology, and it is Talmudo-centrism. Any contradiction between facts and the Talmud, and the talmud must be right. Any contradiction between the Torah /Neviim and the Talmud, and of course their position is with the Talmud.  Thus, just like the Palestinian Islamists are unable to grasp the fact that a Temple pre-existed their religion and mosque, so the rabbis cannot grasp the fact that Hebrew was a spoken language before the invention of the niqqud vowels,  or that the Kohanim knew how to slaughter animals before the invention of the Oral Law.

An awareness of this kind of bias, before engaging the rabbis in debate, will be very useful, and effecive.

New Source for Joshua Myth?

Previously, I mentioned the rabbinic claim that Joshua married the harlot, Rahab:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/midrash-fact-fiction-or-projection.html

There are many myths that find their way into Talmud and Midrash from a variety of sources. It is possible that this myth may have a connection to a claim made about another Yeshua - Jesus.
According to a new book, Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who was also a prostitute.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827310/Jesus-married-prostitute-Mary-Magdalene-two-children-lost-gospel-reveals.html

It is very easy for such myths to crossover into Jewish Midrash, since the common market of new religions 2000 years ago shared many ideas and stories. Thus several myths which have no basis in the TNK but were in external works such as the Dead Sea scrolls or the Alphabet of ben Sira, find their way into rabbinic midrash.

Mikveh Scandal

The latest in an unending series of rabbinic scandals, involves a prominent American Orthodox rabbi, Barry Freundel, who set up voyeuristic cameras in the Mikveh of his synagogue, and filmed women - both married Jewish members,  and converting to Judaism - as they immersed naked into this mikveh.
http://forward.com/articles/207652/rabbis-barry-freundel-and-leib-tropper-ensnared-in/?p=all

This is a scandal about rabbinic power, perversion and complacency. About how power corrupts , and absolute (religious power) corrupts absolutely.

However, there is a bigger picture scandal in all of this. this is the scandal of the "mikveh".  In Lev 15, it gives the laws relating to menstruant women.  There is no explicit requirement for a woman to "immerse"  in a mikveh. In fact, it does not explicitly state that she even needs to bath in water. We may  infer, from the fact that a man who has come into contact with her needs to bathe in water, that she can do the same. But this is not specifically a rabbinically constructed mikveh.  The scandal is that rabbis have legislated to control and dehumanize the population with their additions.  The ongoing violations of human dignity are part and parcel of this rabbinic offensive on human dignity.

The Primacy of Torah Law

Actually, the title may be a bit misleading, since it is the name of a chapter written by someone I have previously featured in my “Great Rabbis” series – Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/great-rabbis-series-prof-emanuel-rackman.html

However, this article makes a common rabbinic claim about various groups who have rejected Orthodox Judaism. He bunches together Christianity, Reform Judaism, Sadducees and Karaites. This is despite the fact that the sadducees rejected Christianity, and the Karaites reject Reform Judaism. Furthermore, the Pharisees rejected the Torah centred Sadduceees.

Alas, Rackman, who for many years was my mentor, writes that there is a simple reason why all these groups rejected Rabbinic Judaism, and that is because the Torah is a “yoke” i.e. a burden, and it is easier to reject than to accept a burden.

This argument is false for several reasons. As already mentioned, each of the different groups took on a different view to religion. It might be the case that Reform considered many rites outdated or too difficult, but they actually gave up believing altogether. Christianity, which I am not defending, did reject many laws, but they also adopted new ones. Whether or not the argument applies to these deviant groups, the charge made against the Sadducees and the Karaites are nonsensical.

The Sadducees, ie the priesthood from Zadok, rejected the Oral Testament of the rabbis, because they considered it alien and false. The Pharisees rejected the clear meaning of the Torah on many counts, as a way to create a new religion, and expel the Priesthood from the Temple. This is illustrated in Mishnah Sotah, where terrorist rabbis such as ben Zakkai abolish wholesale the Torah Law. This is in fact verified by the rabbi Akavya ben Mehalelel, who accused the alien convert rabbis, Shemaya and Avtalyon of falsifying Torah practice to suit their own personal needs. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

It is rather ironic, since Emanuel Rackman was the Akavya of orthodoxy in his own time, and I once told him that he had revived the roll of his historic predecessor.

The actual claim that Torah is a burden, and rejection of the Torah is because of the burden is also a fallacious claim. The Torah puts limitations on the scope of religious restrictions, by clearly forbidding adding and subtracting. This was the self-justified practice of the Rabbis. The reason behind the rabbinical rejection of Torah law is complex, but part of it is their arrogance and competition with the Priesthood, whom they wished to destroy. Just as Korach tried to rebel against Moses and Aaron of the tribe of Levi, so the Pharisees did against the Zadokite descendants of Aaron.

It is interesting to note that Shemaya and Avtalyon, were students of Shimon ben Shetach, he was the brother in law of Alexander Janneus, the High priest and sadducee king. Thus, it appears that ben Shetach had begun his program of destroying the priesthood (and the temple) by appointing gentile converts to the head of the Pharisees Sanhedrin. It is also a true and telling irony, that by the Rabbis' own admission (Gittin 57b), Shemaya and Avtalyon were both descendants of Sennacherib, the Assyrian King who besieged Jerusalem, and exiled the Northern tribes of Israel.

We now see an alternative narrative of history. Sennacherib attempted to destroy Jerusalem, but was stopped by an angel. He did succeed, however, in destroying the Northern parts of Israel, and causing exile. His descendants, Shemaya and Avtalyon, as is explicitly stated by Akavya ben Mehalelel (who cited a tradition he had heard from his teachers) falsified Torah law to suit their Sennacheribean heritage. It should be noted that Shemaya and Avtalyon were major founders and creators of the oral law. Their project was completed by ben Zakkai, who abolished the priestly functions such as the Bitter water ceremony, and the breaking of the neck of Eglah Arufah ceremony.This spiritual destruction of the Temple by the line of Shemaya + Avtalyon through to ben Zakkai led to its physical destruction. Where Shemaya and Avtalyon's ancestor, Sennacherib, failed, they and their followers succeeded in destroying the Temple.

Before Rabbis start accusing Sadducees and Karaites, they should try to study the Torah itself, and to make it their primal focus. In this way, they may see how their ancestors have led to destruction of Judaism, and perhaps if they are bold enough, can rebuild it. The Torah does not impose a yoke that is as oppressive as the Talmud, so rejecting the Talmud is not about convenience, but about honour for the Torah.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin - Jewish Illiteracy

The author, Joseph Telushkin has written a book on  “Jewish Literacy”, and an extract is used in Jewish Virtual Library’s page on the oral Law.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html

In that piece, Telushkin begs the question, trying to use common sense to show the need for some sort of oral law.  He raises some common points, but they are worth refuting here:

1) “Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy?”

The above statement is fallacious, but it is also false. The fallacy is that it is begging the question, i.e. since he claims (mistakenly) that these are the only forbidden things in the Torah, it is means other things must also be forbidden!   It is factually false, because there are other general prohibitions. Thus, in Deut 5, the restatement of the 10 commandments, we see:

12 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work

13 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

Verse 12 already sets the scene by saying what is permitted, i.e. all our regular work.  The Torah is not a Dept of Employment Handbook, to classify every single type of work or occupation.  Cement mixing, carpet weaving, computer programming, etc are all types of work that would be permitted for 6 days and forbidden on the 7^th.

2) “the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.”

Another circular argument. These rituals are all rabbinically created, so why would one expect them to be found in the Torah?

3) Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart.…. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." "Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).”

Here is a classic argument of rabbinic polemicists. The solution to the alleged problem raised by Telushkin, and his predecessors, is already found within the texts he cites.  He focuses on the word טוֹטָפֹת , which he claims means “teffilin”. He also claims that this word has no uncoding without the Oral law.  However, one only has to go back a few verses from Ex 13:16 to unravel the problem.

In v 9 it says the following:

ט  וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְךָ, וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ, לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה, בְּפִיךָ:  כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה, הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.

9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.

The word used in Hebrew is “zikaron”, a memorial or reminder.

In v16 it says:

טז  וְהָיָה לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְכָה, וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ:  כִּי בְּחֹזֶק יָד, הוֹצִיאָנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.

16 And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.'

The word in 16 is “totafot”. Since the meaning, form, context and structure of these verses are equivalent, we can confidently say that the 2 words,  zikaron and totafot are synonyms – they mean the same thing. Hence, we need look no further than the Torah itself to interpret the word totafot.   Now, what exactly are the memorials in the 13^th Chapter of Exodus, that remind us of the exodus from Egypt?

The first one is in v7. Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.

The second is in v 13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck; and all the first-born of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem.

The Matzah, and the redemption of the firstborn are the reminders/totafot.

There is no requirement to bind matzah or a firstborn ass on our foreheads.  And the same is true of the Shema, in Deut 6. It is referring to the 10 commandments of the previous chapter, which shall be reminders of our daily lives. The irony is that Rabbinic tefillin do not even contain the 10 commandments.  Indeed, the rabbis made sure we forget the 10 commandments, by abolishing them from the traditional daily prayer.  The reason was, allegedly, that Christians made them a central tenet of their religion, hence the rabbis wished to differentiate their religion form Christianity.

If rabbis encouraged people to study the Torah objectively, there would be more Jewish literacy. However, the insistence on learning Talmud, which distorts the Torah’s meaning as often as it amplifies it, renders the torah to a secondary and less important source of Jewish literacy.

Reading Without Vowels

Hebrew is a written language that appears in books without the vowels/ niqqud - or diacritics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_diacritics

It is a classical rabbinical claim that the Torah is illegible without these diacritics.  However, these  rabbis are unaware of Biblical Hebrew,  Phonecian, or related semitic languages such as Arabic of Persian, the latter 2  having similar diacritics, but can be read without them.

The fact remains that even in modern hebrew, books, journals etc are written without the diacritics. And reading something in the Hebrew news today I am reminded of a typical rabbinic type fallacy.

The word בגין   can mean "for"  and can also be read as the name Begin,  i.e. the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin. How then, can a modern Israeli, reading or writing legal documents , official papers or only reading a newspaper know whether the word is referring to the late PM  or to  its other meaning, "for"?

The answer, is that it depends very much on context. 

The polemicists choose examples where both meanings are possible.  In that case, it would presumably be the more likely option.  Thus the famous example of חלב  in 14:21 - is it referring to milk or fat?  The most reasonable answer is milk, since mother's milk is a well known term. 

When adult Israelis require diacritical vowels to understand Hebrew, then we might be open to this rabbinic argument.  However, since millions of books, journals and newspapers are published in Hebrew without them, it seems that the whole argument is rather weak.

Mockery of Talmidei Hachamim

One of the threats used by the Talmud, is the loss of the world to come for those who mock the hachamim.  In fact, they also claim that the 2^nd temple was destroyed because of disrespect for the rabbis.

It is a useful tool to prevent causeless hatred, and mockery is not a good approach. Honest debate is a better approach, from both sides.

There is also a fallacy that the rabbis use, which prevents reading the Torah in its actual intent. A very clear case study was given here http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/strange-spices-pt-3-cinnamon-250.html

And there are plenty more. It is also hypocritical, since the rabbis spend a lot of their time mocking their opponents, including the Priesthood, and assassinating those who do not agree with them (see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/unholy-cow-or-how-to-destroy-your-own.html)

The Torah gives protection from the false threats of the Perushim (Deut. 18:22).  The attacks on the talmudic rabbis are only done for a) their violation of the Torah, and b) their false statements, either logically or scientifically. It should also be noted that the rabbinic movement was never a united, movement. 

Although good deeds and lovingkindness was preached and practiced, and is until today, there were occasions when there was rivalry and violence.
 Long before Islam and its internecine wars, the houses of Shammai and Hillel schools were already killing each other: http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/golden-calf-of-talmud.html

This was a great tragedy, which the Talmud itself acknowledges. It is not something that should be revived. Using sarcasm or showing illogic of an argument is not the same as mocking the person, although that is sometimes hard to resist. 

Incidentally, it might also be helpful if the opponents of Karaism made their arguments more respectful too.  The Talmud states  "all mockery is forbidden, except for mockery of Idolatry". 
Since neither side of the debate are idolaters, then that is a good basis for debate.

How to Test the Sages

The following claim is made in the Talmud:

The Gemara on Bava Batra 12a writes the following:

Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet? — What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom. Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater? (Soncino translation)

R’ Yosef ibn Migash (the teacher of the Rambam), commenting on this Gemara, writes the following:

. . . a חכם is thus superior to a prophet: for a prophet only relates that which he heard and that which was placed in his mouth to repeat, while a חכם relates a tradition given to Moses at Sinai, even though he had never heard it [from anyone]! (qtd. in The Jewish Political Tradition Vol I. Ed. Walzer et al. pg. 260)

In contrast, the Ramban writes that this Gemara “means to say that although the prophecy of the prophets – by means of image and vision – was lost, the prophecy of the sages – by means of the intellect – was not lost. Rather, they know the truth from the holy spirit which [dwells] within them." (ibid).

source http://nevuah.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/and.html

The Talmud here claims that the Rabbis have been endowed with prophecy!  The commentators try to define what type of prophecy this is, and come up with unconvincing arguments.  A rabbis is  prophet through his intellect, or through having heard something from his teacher or read in a book.  So it is not clear whether they are altogether escaping from the Talmudic claims of prophecy, or trying to redefine it.

In any case, the Torah gives us license to question any person or claim of prophecy.

Deut. 18:  20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'

21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.

The Torah gives a methodology on how to test a claim to prophecy.  If the prophecy that the claimant prophet makes does not follow, or take place, then he is a false /presumptuous prophet. And the punishment for presumptuous prophets is very serious (v. 20).

The claims of the Talmud are variously, that there is a tradition from Sinai which was unwritten; that the rabbis themselves have a backdoor to Sinai, whereby their own ideas were given on Sinai retroactively, and that their words are also prophetic.

All of these claims are claims of prophecy, whether direct or indirect.  Incidentally, whereas the Torah provides us license to test such claims,  the rabbis deny the Torah, and threaten anyone who questions the oral law with heresy and eternal damnation.

To use the method and internal logic of the Torah, we can verify or falsify the Talmudic claims.  Any predictions made, or claims made , which do not follow  temporally or logically, can be considered as false prophecy. If in fact, no predictions are made,  then the claim that they are prophets is a false claim, and hence they are also false prophets.   If the rabbis also make statements that violate torah, and claim this was all in the oral law, these contradictions and violations also constitute false prophesy. 

In Micah 3 for example, we see the issue of false prophets:

5 Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people to err; that cry: 'Peace', when their teeth have any thing to bite; and whoso putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him:

6 Therefore it shall be night unto you, that ye shall have no vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them.

7 And the seers shall be put to shame, and the diviners confounded; yea, they shall all cover their upper lips; for there shall be no answer of God.

Once the claim to prophecy is made, it is a huge responsibility, and a double edged sword.  Just as one cannot make the claim to being the Messiah without scrutiny, so is the case for prophecy.  Thus the ridiculous claims of the rabbis that questioning the veracity of the Talmud is heretical are destroyed by the Torah itself!

Midrash – Fact, Fiction or Projection?

Midrash are rabbinical fables which are legends based around stories, events or people in the TNK.  However, these are often very tall stories, which are designed to give a new slant or justify rabbinical lore and law, rather than reflecting historical or factual truth. For the fundamentalist Rabbanites, however, these are all part and parcel of the oral law and are all true in some sense or other. The problem is that there is no supporting evidence for most midrashim,  and they often go against logic and even Torah.

A particular example is the midrashic  story of Rahab, who was saved by the 2 spies sent by Joshua to Jericho.

The rabbis make an outrageous claim, that the prostitute Rahab became Jewish and married Joshua. 

“After having engaged in prostitution for forty years, Rahab converted at the age of fifty. She said: “Master of the Universe! I have sinned with three things [with my eye, my thigh, and my stomach]. By the merit of three things pardon me: the rope, the window, and the wall [pardon me for engaging in harlotry because I endangered myself when I lowered the rope for the spies from the window in the wall]” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Amalek, Yitro 1). Another tradition has her saying: “Pardon me by merit of the rope, the window, and the flaxen [the stalks of flax under which she concealed the spies]” (BT Zevahim loc. cit.).
Many Rabbis viewed conversion favorably, an attitude that is reflected in exegeses about Rahab. The midrash attests that Rahab married Joshua following her conversion (BT Megillah 14b). Eight kohanim who were also prophets were descended from her: Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Seraiah, Mahseiah, Baruch, Neriah, Hanamel and Shalom. According to one opinion, the prophet Huldah was also among her offspring (Sifrei on Numbers, chap. 78). Other traditions also include Ezekiel son of Buzi (Sifrei Zuta loc. cit.). In another exegesis, God showed Moses before his death, through the spirit of divine inspiration, the line of prophets that would issue from Rahab (Sifrei on Deuteronomy, Chap.338).”

 - source: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/rahab-midrash-and-aggadah

The midrashim are making a number of claims – that Rahab married Joshua; that her descendants included many prophets, and also Kohanim. There is not any evidence or suggestion in the TNK that supports these wild claims. There are, however, some subtle hints that suggest their falsity.

In Joshua 6, we see:

22 And Joshua said unto the two men that had spied out the land: 'Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye swore unto her.'

Joshua refers to her not by name, but by profession.  This means that he was most likely of the view that “once a harlot, always a harlot”.   Furthermore, if he was really in love and awe of this repentant harlot, he would have used some kind words in describing her.

Next:  23 And the young men the spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had, all her kindred also they brought out; and they set them without the camp of Israel.

It is important to note that the entire family were kept outside the camp of Israel. This is a very important indicator of their non-Israelite identity.  Had Joshua wished to convert her and marry her, she would have moved into the camp of Israel, which is not the case.  We see, however, that eventually they were accepted into Israel:

25 But Rahab the harlot, and her father's household, and all that she had, did Joshua save alive; and she dwelt in the midst of Israel, unto this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Even after this, she is still known as the harlot. Would it be appropriate for the leader of Israel to marry someone he himself calls a harlot, even when later generations are accepted into Israel?

There are further issues that are problematic for such a claim. Not only do the rabbis claim here descendants were Prophets, they were also allegedly Kohanim. 

In Leviticus 21 we see the rules regarding  Kohanim:

7 They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God.

Whilst it is true that the rabbis are claiming later generations were Kohanim, this is still problematic, since  matrilineal lines of Kohanim are meant also to be pure.  It could be argued that only after several generations did her descendants marry into the priesthood, but it could similarly be argued that although Joshua may not have been a Kohen, he would also have worries about marrying a defiled woman.

A more rational explanation would look at the psychological and historical context of these midrashim.   It is more likely that this story was dreamed up by a rabbi, who himself had married a prostitute. Thus, by projecting this acceptance onto a man as great as Joshua, he was justifying his own act, and lessening the social stigma of his own marital affairs.

Furthermore, we must remember that the Pharisees did everything they could to defile the Priesthood and the Temple (e.g. ref heifer, spices, anointing oil etc.). Their attempts may have also included installation of their own priests to replace the line of Zadok. It is possible some lapsed priests who had married harlots etc were recruited by the Pharisees in the process, and hence this midrash was created for political reason.

There is a third reason why this midrash is of doubtful veracity. The story is not recorded in the TNK.  If such an important part of Israelite ancestry took place, it would certainly have appeared in the Book of Chronicles or Joshua. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perfect/Imperfect

 Joshua's Altar - Mount Ebal

 

The kind of rabbinic polemics offered by those such as Kuzari, Duran, Saadia Gaon etc, in justifying the Oral Law, are based on attacks aimed at the Torah itself. These various claims, which have been refuted by Ami Hertz, and also on this blog, make allegations against the Torah on 2 fronts.  The first is that the Torah in itself is illegible.  This basically attacks the grammar, the script, punctuation etc, and falsely claims that the nikkud, or little vowels had to be created by the rabbis (or given on Sinai) in order to make the torah legible.

The second line of attack, is that the Torah, if read on its own, is imperfect, and leaves out certain details of practice, such as shechita, the 4 species of Sukkot etc.

Although there are many previous posts which destroy such atrocious claims, there are also textual proofs which show the mendacity of these rabbinic apologists. In essence, these are the strongest disproofs, since they are not philosophical  but textual.

The first of these prooftexts is from Devarim:

Deut 27:

ח  וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל-הָאֲבָנִים, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת--בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב.  {ס}

8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.'

The phrase בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב is one that destroys the allegation that the Torah is somehow illegible.  Whilst it cannot be expected of rabbis to understand Biblical Hebrew, this in itself does not make the Torah illegible.  The Torah itself says that it is legible, and hence those who claim otherwise are heretics of the torah.

The second text is in Tehillim 19:

Ps 19;8 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

This disproves the claims that the Torah is imperfect.  If it was imperfect, as the rabbis claim this would make King David a liar.  Since the rabbis are now denying the words of David, it makes them illegitimate in terms of Israelite citizenship, as it is a rebellion against King David.