But it’s not math...it’s a language that has its own rules too. The rules are frequently broken by G-d. Does He get a mulligan or is there a deeper meaning. It’s critical, actually, for understanding and makes no sense whatsoever as a guide to life without the key to “unlocking” the “mistakes” or ambiguities.
I doubt you’ll listen to the class, which is fine...but for example, the root word for milk and fat [a type of fat from the sacrifices which is prohibited for consumption] is the same, a Ch, an L, and a V sound. Depending on how they’re vowelized (the vowels appear under the word in Hebrew and are often left out, relying on context and tradition) the Jews could be prohibited from mixing meat and milk (no cheeseburgers) or meat and...fat. I will be pissed if we got it wrong...
That’s a “cute” example but the point is to prove the Oral Law, for Jews. Christians may and do feel free to negate it all, not being bound by it at all save for the seven Noahide laws from Genesis (http://www.noahide.org/?p=669) BUT realize that insofar as you “believe” in the “OT,” you are believing in something that cannot be understood as G-d instructing Man how to live without any further explanation.
Typically the commandments make sense on more than one level. Dietary rules prohibited things that were common pagan sacrifices. Since all eating is a sacrifice offering to God, it was considered a safeguard against confusion with pagan practices. Its relative importance can be seen by the prescribed penalty for transgressing (to be put outside the camp and be ritually unclean until evening).
You’re treating God like Someone who is throwing dice in a corner then daring you to match what He just threw. Rather than Someone who is offering to save your souls in love. You’ve created a need which isn’t even there except in your desire to be dignified.
Interesting post—but there is an alternative to mistakes—you use the word ambiguities as well. One of my old instructors was fond of the phrase “deliberate Hebrew ambiguities” which wasn’t bad. The point (or rather, the lack of pointing) being that multiple meanings can indeed be intended.
(I offer the above primarily as an alternative to making the contribution of “self-ping”—I hope to listen to it later).