> The conclusion flows naturally from the facts ...
>
> Let's examine some facts relevant ...
>
> a. does the average consumer of the language english have the
> slightest clue
> as to what this law means?
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001631-
> ---000-.html
>
> b. does even the average trained purveyor of this law understand
> this
> english language?
>
> c. obviously, the answer to both "a" and "b" = negative.
>
> d. and likewise, for the similar deuteronomic legal code in 882
> b.c., all as
> illustrated today by david's excellent explanation of the civil
> law
> then. ezra was not needed to "translate" in 442 b.c.; but to
> "explain" as
> david explained today; or so nehemiah 8:8 states.
Sorry, but you are comparing apples to rabbits again. The law in the Cornell
link is not
written in English; it's written in Legalese, an artificial dialect created
by lawyers to confound
the rest of us while making themselves sound impressive. Nothing in the
Deuteronomic
code, or any of the rest of the Law for that matter, is even remotely
comparable. So your
conclusion flows naturally from...nothing.