Submitted by M Tovey (United States), May 6, 2021 at 16:01
Once again; DNM hits it right on the obvious note of what is and what is not authoritative religious observances: [More? in his footnote: He is quoting the Bible! I thought the Bible is a corrupted book.].
In historical context, the mere allegation that the Hebrew Holy Writ is a 'corrupted' book is merely an excuse (not a valid criticism since the people of that time did not correctly believe what the Tanach was teaching); and such excuses are apparently the balm of conscience for not believing what is subsequently proven to be the remaining evidences of truth.
So, if we try to get the sense of what DNM is inferring here, that here the 'teachings' of the reading here is the 'turning of the phrase;' that the context does not match the supposed intent; and confusion is the result. In essence, the sense is that a justification of a questionable circumstance is attempted here, so that asserting the questionability of what is presented is argued away for lack of conscience sake.
One would never find that type of excuse in the Hebrew Holy Scripture: it does not need excuses.
Thanks for the distinction, DNM.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".