As a regular follower, lately a lot of the questions here remind me of this:
https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%99-%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%9F-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/

A. Is there an article online, or do I need to get the books (which I don’t have on hand)?
B. I relied on your responses to the article about an apikores, such as: “As for the Torah, personally I דווקא tend to think that the Torah was given at Sinai, at least a substantial part of it. But it is definitely plausible that some parts were not, and even more plausible that its editing is later,” or explicitly about the Written Torah: “I assume it is by the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, although there are verses that seem not to be. The default is that it is, unless there is a strong reason against it. In any case, it is binding even if it was not written by the Holy One, blessed be He.” But the whole Torah is presented as the word of God, so it isn’t clear what part He did not write.

A. There are notebooks here on the site. And the books can be bought.
B. The Torah is really not presented that way. On the contrary, in the Torah it is fairly clear that there are later additions. The determination that all of it was given at Sinai is that of the Sages, and in my opinion it is a normative determination, not a historical one. And even if they thought so, then that is what they thought. But how do you get from there to saying that they lied?

Sorry if I’m being a pest; I’m trying to understand, and today is really my first time encountering this approach, and it intrigues me. (I started with the article in Makor Rishon, which is very radical for my taste—maybe permitting homosexuality because perhaps what was forbidden was only in the context of idolatry—and I’m interpreting the rest of the blog posts in light of it.)
As an ordinary reader, I don’t see a division in the Torah between earlier and later verses. The Sages’ determination that the whole Torah was given at Sinai (I don’t understand what “a normative determination” means; I’d be happy with a short explanation) is pretty clear to the ordinary reader. To think that someone means hidden intentions by this, or that you have to be super-smart like you in order to understand what the Sages said, or to see that the Torah—which is one book—is written by both God and flesh-and-blood people, does not seem logical to me. If someone mixes his own words together with the Creator’s words (according to you, that’s what the editors of the Torah did) in a way that I won’t notice, he is trying to deceive me. If the claim is that Sages thousands of years ago thought the whole Torah was given from Sinai, and today we know that it wasn’t (so it comes out that they were mistaken and not intentionally lying), then what meaning is there to what they said? And why should I be obligated to do what they said? Of course I don’t think the Sages are lying, but I think that is precisely why what they said should be accepted in its plain sense.

1. I did not permit homosexuality.
2. When the verse says “to this very day,” that means it was written later.
3. A normative determination means that this is how we are to relate to it even if that is not the factual truth. The Hazon Ish wrote about the Mishnah Berurah that all of its words are as if they were said in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And then of course he disagreed with it (like a rebellious elder). You don’t need a long day of study to understand that. Certainly not more than is needed to understand what your “naive rabbi” wants from us.
4. No one is mixing his own words with the Creator’s words. If there are later verses (and I’m not sure there are), they are simply editorial actions on the biblical texts. That’s all.
5. In almost every text, anyone who interprets it literally and in its plain sense will make mistakes. There are metaphors and parables and various literary statements, etc.

I have to say, hearing these things from someone who is becoming close to Rabbi Nachman is really strange. Is his text understandable to everyone? Is everything there literal?

A. A quote from the article: “On the other hand, it is also clear that from a moral standpoint, to demand of a person that he not realize his sexual identity, not live a life of partnership and sexuality in the way his heart is drawn, is a very problematic demand. Therefore I will try to interpret Jewish law in a way that brings it as close as possible to the moral aspect—that perhaps the biblical prohibition on male intercourse stems from the fact that in the biblical period male intercourse was an expression and a mode of idol worship, but once it no longer serves that purpose perhaps it can be permitted. Or alternatively, today we know that there are people who can be attracted to both sexes and there are those who can be attracted only to their own sex. So perhaps the Torah prohibited male intercourse for someone who has another option, but did not prohibit it for someone for whom this is his unambiguous identity.”
B. “And bread and parched grain and fresh grain you shall not eat until this very day, until you bring…” Clearly “this very day” is not the day of writing, but the very day of bringing.
C. Why would I need to relate to something so fundamental as though it was given at Sinai if it wasn’t given there? Who gave the Sages the authority to cause me to do things that were not given at Sinai as though they were given at Sinai?
D. Normal publishers—even when the poet wrote a spelling error—correct it in brackets and not in the body of the text, all the more so with the words of the living God. But if that’s all you meant, I can somehow live with it.
The reason Rabbi Nachman wrote things that are not understood is because Rabbi Nachman or Rabbi Natan wrote them. From the Torah I have different expectations, and I prefer to interpret it according to those expectations. It’s hard to say I’m drawing close to Rabbi Nachman because I really understand almost nothing of what he says. I only connected to a few of his ideas. Mainly I think that in the end maybe I merited to understand that I do not understand, and that took a very, very long time, but it was worth it. In your rational attempt you awaken in me a longing to try to understand everything fully, but I’m still not convinced. (Your answer to part A is very important to me on this issue; the conclusion from your words does not seem logical to me at all. It doesn’t fit for me with your Talmudic logic at all. Were the words taken out of context in the article? Or where do these distinctions come from? Is there any hint of them in the Talmud?)

As for the arguments about homosexuality, there is a distortion. See my comments on the article here on the site.
The authority of the Sages to interpret is anchored in the Torah: “Do not turn aside.” Throughout history, the Sages interpreted the Torah according to their understanding, and in principle there is no obstacle to doing so today as well (within the limits of authority spelled out in the trilogy).
If you have expectations of the Holy One, blessed be He, that are not met, then apparently they are not correct. You are expecting a text that is a children’s book, but the Torah is not that. It may be that you need to understand that you do not understand, as with Rabbi Nachman.
The Torah was given at Sinai, even if there is a verse here or there that was added afterward. Why does that mean one should not listen to what is written in the Torah? And is the Hebrew Bible, which was given through prophets later on, not authoritative in your eyes?
I think we’ve exhausted the topic.

I skimmed the fifth notebook. Even you admit that: A. these are not absolute mathematical-logical proofs. B. nothing can be proven with certainty (except perhaps that statement itself, though that requires further examination).
If I understand the distortion correctly, it is only that you still haven’t actually decided on the interpretation, but only as a matter of Jewish law perhaps as a possible interpretive option. The very option, in my eyes, shows how slippery reason is—how easily it lets you interpret the written word however you want (in the style of “proportionality” and “reasonableness” by which the High Court interprets legal language).
“You expect a text that is a children’s book, but the Torah is not such a text”—maybe you expect a text that only world-class geniuses are capable of understanding and drawing conclusions from. Why think the Torah is like that? Is that more logical?
In my opinion our disagreement is actually pretty small; it’s mainly about dosage. You prefer what you currently understand even if it is strained relative to the tradition handed down to you; I prefer to believe what I was told and to push aside the rational proofs. (For example, evolution in the development of species is, in my opinion, not proven, even though I am a biologist and with my own hands I see a low level of evolution in the lab.) I prefer to believe what was transmitted to me more in its plain sense instead of hair-splitting over the written word. But if your conclusion is that the Conservative position is often preferable in halakhic rulings or in Talmudic interpretation (you didn’t expand beyond that in the fifth notebook), then again I prefer to remain with the accepted Jewish law, at least as it has been in the last few centuries.