[OneVike]

Well, excuse me but the author needs to put down the pipe he's smoking because it's full of wacky weed and he is WRONG!

As I said I do not have time to give a full lesson in Hebrew but take the word from one who studied Hebrew and Greek, He is wrong!

[BlueDragon]

As you wish...

I realize you don't have time to give language instruction.

At some later time, perhaps you might investigate the author's claims more thoroughly (if you haven't done so already).

If you so desired, you may be able to refute him, backing the effort using the recognized methodologies of scholarly criticism.

Concerning textual criticisms, it is necessary for there to be agreement on which exact (extant?) texts are being used.

More from the link, from the author concerning this point:

"So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists."

How much the exact differences in opinion you and the author have lay at the feet of the "three commentaters" I can only glean somewhat second-hand, from the author's own commentary. I'm not able to evaluate the texts directly, myself. Yet I wonder...might your here stated disagreement be arising from being "on the same page", but from slightly differing books?

Please, let me be clear. I'm not saying here, that you owe me a reply or explanation explicitly spelling it all out. Such a work might better be published in the academic world, rather than be employed on a public internet forum.

Yet if you wish to do such rebuttal (of the linked source material) at a later time, it would best be done by first finding out precisely what it is that is in dispute.