One problem for me is that while there may have been scholars of Hebrew working on the KJV they weren't Jewish scholars who understood not just the text but how to prise the context out of the text. (There were no Jews in the UK from 1275 to 1655) Speaking the language is not the same as being a 'native speaker. Look at the difficulties and misunderstandings we have here between American and British English speakers.
Yes, I am aware of that. As I am sure you know, we try to suffer through with you, but I wish you guys across the pond would give up those archaic ways and join us in correct English.
As to Jewish scholars versus who aren't Jews, I understand your point, and can agree up to a point. However, I believe they were equivalent in speaking ability, had the original Hebrew/Aramaic available, and anyway, were inspired by God. I can also understand you will find that idea distasteful.
I suppose the problem , as I've said before, is that the OT was never meant for dissemination among anyone other than the Jewish people, written by Jews for Jews it's hard to see how it really has relevance for non Jews who have only taken it upon themselves because the person they follow was Jewish though that is forgotten for much of the time I feel. I find it puzzling that people decide the OT is not relevant as far as the Law is concerned yet they follow someone to whom the Law as well as Jewish customs and traditions would have been very important as a Jew. The person they follow would have also been able to argue the points as we still do, would have known that the Law is able to be used so that it was humane and just rather than dictatorial. For example where it says a witch should be killed, the Law actually works so that no one is killed, there isn't actually a death penalty there just a warning. There's many examples like this yet this is missing when the Law goes out of Jewish hands and is used to justify much that shouldn't be. In Jewish Law the death penalty is to remind people of the seriousness of the crime not something that should actually carried out. It's this connection with the Law and the way it works that is very sadly lacking when people take the Bible to be literal and follow it to the letter. they leave out all human understanding and compassion which was given to us by G-d.
I believe the Old Testament has value to a Christian. It has many examples of how the Jewish people did not follow God's laws, and the punishment they suffered because of that; to teach us that we should not disoby God. It has laws, some of which were excused by God in the New Testament teachings. There are stories of faith, obediance and lack of it with consequences, reasons things don't always go as we wish, and yet we should perservere, beautiful and inspiring songs, and many other lessons. So I personally do not think the Old Testament is not relevant, nor do I think any Bible believing Christian should think otherwise.
I don't doubt that Jesus knew the law, nor that he obeyed it. But I think the disconnect between us is that we believe Jesus is completely man, and completely God. So yes He knew the law, but did not always agree with the later interpretations of the law, which were given the same force as law. He pointed out some of those that He was against. Again, I am sure you will not agree, and look at that as completely against the core of your beliefs.
I do think you are right that many people don't always make the connection that Jesus was Jewish. Partly perhaps, because of His diety that we believe in, and partly because of the actions of those who pushed for the crusades and the inquisition. It is my belief that a Bible believing Christian should not have supported those things.
There are some good points above. I certainly agree that the death penalty is very final. It is my main reservation about it, although I agree it is sanctioned or required in the Law. I wonder if the rabbis seem to have sought to change the God-given law, and finding no reason under the Law, began to debate to find reasons to do so. I don't mean that as harshly as it might sound. There are plenty of social reformers in our present times (and all times) who do the same to justify their beliefs agains something they don't like. Sometimes they make sense, and sometimes at least in my opinion, they don't. But those are the reasons we all are free to have our own opinions. One of the problems though is that too often, people can't articulate any viable reaons other than they want to believe, and act a certain way. That no matter how it might effect others, nor how much it may be controlled by law.
"The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete".
—Rabbi
Ben Zion Bokser, Statement on capital punishment, 1960.
Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970, Volume III, pp. 1537-1538
As an example, from the paragraph above, I think clearly God intended that some people should be killed so as not to be able to taint the Jewish people, or uplift Satan. But it seems, to get around that, an additional requirement is added that the person must be warned just before the commission of a capitol crime, that it is wrong, and the person must acknowledge that, but insist on doing the crime any way. That clearly isn't possible at all times, in fact hardly ever. But regardless, the killer, if convicted, cannot be sentenced to death (what was done to them?).
There may be an example of that in the New Testament. The New Testament tells us the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead, but took that to Pilate. They said Jesus deserved to die under their law, but they could not kill Jesus, but the Romans could, and accused Jesus of being against Ceasar (against paying taxes) so Pilate would agree. They also accused Jesus of saying he was the King of the Jews So would you think they were following some of what you have pointed out? Also, I do wonder how Jews view the fact that God gave the Jews laws, and if I understand your several statements over time, all Jews know the law from an early age. Why then would they have to be warned just before the commission of the crime (all crimes?) when that doesn't seem to be in the Old Testament?
As always thanks for your willingness to continue to provide insights into your beliefs, and to discuss them. I don't know how many others find it interesting or enlightening, but I certainly do.
EDIT: Oh, I meant to add I envy you your retirement. I expect to do so in about two years or maybe less. But do you ever get bored, or feel you aren't contributing? I worry about that.
as you can see though we've been having a good time without him, it's a nice non argumentative informative thread which isn't what was intended in the OP but that's the way we roll 
