My point was that there are MODERN languages, constructed similarly, that seem NOT to have this 'problem'.
Aramaic uses a consonantal script. Syriac uses a consonantal script. Modern Israeli Hebrew uses a consonantal script. As far as I know, Arabic uses a consonantal script. And you thought you were blowing me out of the water by invoking an all consonantal script?
But the Holy Torah is not a newspaper. Context may be safe enough in reading a newspaper article, but not in reading the Word of G-d. Besides, newspapers, etc., are machine-printed. Torah Scrolls must still be written in accordance with the ancient voluminous rules and regulations given to Moses (but not contained in the Written Torah) to insure that each and every kosher Torah Scroll is an exact replica of the one first written by Moses at G-d's letter-by-letter dictation, which was itself an earthly replica of the Great Scroll in Heaven through which the universe was created (the "logos"). Newspapers and books in modern Hebrew, Arabic, Thai, or whatever do not require this absolute certitude. And once again, I was pointing out that the punctuation and vowels that appear in machine-printed Hebrew Bibles are, like the Rabbinic commentary often printed along with the Biblical text, a rendering into writing of part of the Oral Torah. The Written Torah remains vowel-less and without punctuation or cantillation marks.
I would like to make two more points here. First, the Torah was not written under "Divine inspiration." It is much, much higher than Divine inspiration. It was written by G-d Himself and dictated to Moses letter by letter. It is not the mere general ideas message of the text that are important, but every single letter. Even the names, sizes, shapes, and "crowns" of the letters are loaded with meaning. Even the spaces between the letters are loaded with meaning! This is why the strictest rules are necessary to make sure every Torah Scroll is valid (a single mistake invalidates the entire Scroll). Any "Fundamentalist Protestant" who insists that only the general message of the text is "inspired" or important, and not every letter and space itself, is not a true Fundamentalist but a liberal, since liberals maintain that the Bible "contains" the Word of G-d rather than that it is the Word of G-d. I have always wondered why the same people who defend verbal plenary inspiration are the very ones who have historically defended the sufficiency of translations. Translations convey only the general message of the Divine text and not the text itself, and hence "translationism" is much more in harmony with liberalism than with Fundamentalism.
The second point I wish to reiterate is that until five hundred years ago all chr*stians insisted that the Bible needed an authoritative oral interpretive tradition. Since Protestantism is a recent, modern, and inauthentic version of chr*stianity, sincere chr*stians should not be Protestants but should pick one of the authentically ancient churches to affiliate with. If you are trying to bring me back into chr*stianity your attacks on the Oral Law do you no good, because the only versions of chr*stianity I recognize as having a valid claim to authenticity all have "oral laws" of their own. If I were to return to chr*stianity (chas vechalilah!) it would not be to Protestantism but to one of these ancient churches, which would itself have an "oral law." Just how is your attacking the Oral Law going to make a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox out of me, when my whole point is that among all the "oral traditions" only the Jewish dates back to Moses, includes the rules for writing a Torah Scroll, and provides the vowels and punctuation for the Written Torah?
Before you scold Jews for their Oral Law, may I suggest you first convince all those chr*stians with "oral laws" of their own that they are undercutting the chr*stian cause by giving credence to the idea that the Bible needs an official oral interpretation???