So what do you mean by "authentic?" Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
Your claim that G-d commanded "waving" and "heaving" but did not mandate how this was to be done--as well as your total dismissal of the obvious fact that the Authentic Oral Tradition is what made the Written Torah possible and has kept in in existence all these millenia and that it could not exist without it--simply illustrates your own groundless dogmatism.
Well thanks. Did God specify how far apart to place your feet when you're waving and heaving? Did he specify the exact angle your head should be at? Did he specify the exact distance that your fingers should be spread? Did he specify the exact length the hairs on your arms needed to be when you waved or heaved? Is there no authentic tradition for these things?
And btw, forgive me, but I don't think you're on the same spiritual level as Ezekiel, much less Betzalel and 'Ohali'av.
I supported from scripture that the tabernacle could have been built and was built without tradition. I showed that God infused people with his spirit to give them the wisdom and knowledge of how to do the things he wanted done. And your response is to dismiss it by comparing my spirituality to biblical figures? Do you not think God could do the same thing to a lowly sinner like myself if he so chose?
The Authentic Tradition is from G-d on Mt. Sinai. The traditions of other religions with other sources are the inventions of human beings.
Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
No.
Did God specify how far apart to place your feet when you're waving and heaving? Did he specify the exact angle your head should be at? Did he specify the exact distance that your fingers should be spread? Did he specify the exact length the hairs on your arms needed to be when you waved or heaved? Is there no authentic tradition for these things?
There is an authentic Tradition from G-d's Mouth on just how exactly to perform each of the rituals (including the "waving" of Aaron's sons, which I doubt you could do just from your King James Bible). Evidently you are having trouble even understanding what I'm saying because you just now seem to be getting this and you're hurling it at me as if it is somehow supposed to be destructive of my argument.
I supported from scripture that the tabernacle could have been built and was built without tradition. I showed that God infused people with his spirit to give them the wisdom and knowledge of how to do the things he wanted done. And your response is to dismiss it by comparing my spirituality to biblical figures? Do you not think God could do the same thing to a lowly sinner like myself if he so chose?
No, you compared yourself to Biblical figures, saying that you could do it as well as they. And by the way, thank you for acknowledging that G-d had to impart wisdom and knowledge not found in the written Bible. I guess I win the argument after all, though I doubt you will notice that.
It is pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even notice that your position is itself imposed on Scripture from the outside, that the Bible contains no inspired table of contents (meaning that after G-d dictated the Torah to Moses all other Biblical books had to be approved by some human authority in order to be included), and that evidently the KJV and the "holy spirit" never seem to say the same thing to any two people. What a foundation of air on which to build a religion.
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest. And Moses was not just a prophet. He was the man who spoke with G-d "face to face," which means his authority is greater than that of any prophet and the Revelation vouchsafed to him is higher than any other revelation.