The hubris of man to always assume we could think of a better way to handle things than God will never cease to amaze me. It is one thing to question to seek Truth. It's another to question to prove one's own preconceived notion.
It's not a criticism on God. It's an assertion that the a priori probability of god revealing himself to a primitive people is low, and therefore the credence in the proposition of the revelation itself ought to be lowered accordingly. (It's like the the distinction between the deductive problem of evil and the evidentiary argument from evil.)
But it's a lowering of probability based on a feeling. Additionally, doesn't it seem that the rejection is just as weak as the assertion? It's not really analytical. Anything can be ridiculed by simplifying it to its weakest form. I addressed it in the way I did specifically to reformulate the paradigm. The author views this as something that should make us question the validity of the revelation. Fine, but build a better argument.
Funny, I've usually heard the objection go the other way, where the question is asked why God didn't reveal it earlier if the world needs an instruction manual.
I don't see how Revelation can avoid any sort of challenge like this, unless God is constantly revealing himself at all times 24/7.
I don't want to get too invested in this, because as I've said I don't consider it a valid argument, but the point would be about gods expectations from us. Like if he really wanted us to believe he should've given us something that doesn't come across as a bronze age myth which doesn't seem very epistemologically compelling.
I think the main point was to advance humanity from Bronze age thinking which it did quite well... Wouldn't have worked at a later time because humanity would not have advanced without it
What? The Roman empires advancements had nothing to do with the bible. Ditto for the Persians and the Greeks. The point of the bronze age is that all we have is mythology, and no verifiable historical records like we have in the Greco-Roman world and onwards, and it seems rather fantastical that God chose such a murky means of revelation.
The rise of human rights (the combination of Jerusalem and Athens, as Ben Shapiro puts it) is based on the Bible and is the source of Western civilization.
The question is why was it a one time revelation when according to you it was limited because of the time it was given. Slavery couldn’t be abolished at that time so it’s legalized. Why wasn’t there an update at sone point later.
It’s really only a question if you adopt your viewpoint that the Torah was given for the people of its time and therefore had compromises. From the haredi perspective there is no question. The Torah is perfect, whatever it says is moral and therefore doesn’t need any updating.
I like the questioning the source of the belief part as unreliable testimony.
I don’t like the “wouldn’t god do X?” part. I’m not sure how one evaluates what god should have done. His goals are super unclear to me. What would a perfect being want? How would he bring it about. I don’t think our intuitions are good at figuring this out.
Interesting POV, although I wouldn't say it's objectively compelling in any. Although I agree myth is infinitely more likely that revelation, there could be many reasons why God may have wanted to do it in the bronze/iron age as opposed to waiting until the modern era.
Your argument is anachronistic, assuming revelation should align with modern expectations.
But who’s to say another time would have been more effective? Sinai wasn’t just about delivering information, it was about forging a national covenant, something that was needed then, not later.
And revelation wasn’t a one-time event; it set something in motion. Prophecy and open miracles continued for millennia.
The real question isn’t why then instead of now, but what revelation actually means.
Read it. It starts with God trying to make a covenant with humanity, it fails, and then he picks one person, and says he will make him into a huge nation, and after they become big, redeem them...
What’s also very interesting is that all nevua ended. Why is it that nevua was stopped at the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash and hasn’t returned?
The hubris of man to always assume we could think of a better way to handle things than God will never cease to amaze me. It is one thing to question to seek Truth. It's another to question to prove one's own preconceived notion.
It's not a criticism on God. It's an assertion that the a priori probability of god revealing himself to a primitive people is low, and therefore the credence in the proposition of the revelation itself ought to be lowered accordingly. (It's like the the distinction between the deductive problem of evil and the evidentiary argument from evil.)
But it's a lowering of probability based on a feeling. Additionally, doesn't it seem that the rejection is just as weak as the assertion? It's not really analytical. Anything can be ridiculed by simplifying it to its weakest form. I addressed it in the way I did specifically to reformulate the paradigm. The author views this as something that should make us question the validity of the revelation. Fine, but build a better argument.
Fair. The OP makes a good subjective point, but I can't say it works on an objective level.
Funny, I've usually heard the objection go the other way, where the question is asked why God didn't reveal it earlier if the world needs an instruction manual.
I don't see how Revelation can avoid any sort of challenge like this, unless God is constantly revealing himself at all times 24/7.
I don't want to get too invested in this, because as I've said I don't consider it a valid argument, but the point would be about gods expectations from us. Like if he really wanted us to believe he should've given us something that doesn't come across as a bronze age myth which doesn't seem very epistemologically compelling.
I think the main point was to advance humanity from Bronze age thinking which it did quite well... Wouldn't have worked at a later time because humanity would not have advanced without it
What? The Roman empires advancements had nothing to do with the bible. Ditto for the Persians and the Greeks. The point of the bronze age is that all we have is mythology, and no verifiable historical records like we have in the Greco-Roman world and onwards, and it seems rather fantastical that God chose such a murky means of revelation.
The rise of human rights (the combination of Jerusalem and Athens, as Ben Shapiro puts it) is based on the Bible and is the source of Western civilization.
The question is why was it a one time revelation when according to you it was limited because of the time it was given. Slavery couldn’t be abolished at that time so it’s legalized. Why wasn’t there an update at sone point later.
That's a fair question, especially since an update was promised in Tanakh.
It’s really only a question if you adopt your viewpoint that the Torah was given for the people of its time and therefore had compromises. From the haredi perspective there is no question. The Torah is perfect, whatever it says is moral and therefore doesn’t need any updating.
I like the questioning the source of the belief part as unreliable testimony.
I don’t like the “wouldn’t god do X?” part. I’m not sure how one evaluates what god should have done. His goals are super unclear to me. What would a perfect being want? How would he bring it about. I don’t think our intuitions are good at figuring this out.
Interesting POV, although I wouldn't say it's objectively compelling in any. Although I agree myth is infinitely more likely that revelation, there could be many reasons why God may have wanted to do it in the bronze/iron age as opposed to waiting until the modern era.
Your argument is anachronistic, assuming revelation should align with modern expectations.
But who’s to say another time would have been more effective? Sinai wasn’t just about delivering information, it was about forging a national covenant, something that was needed then, not later.
And revelation wasn’t a one-time event; it set something in motion. Prophecy and open miracles continued for millennia.
The real question isn’t why then instead of now, but what revelation actually means.
I'm not sure what the logic is in this post.
Alternatively, if God came now, it would be easily fakeeable with technology....
The Torah essentially answers this question. It was given the first possible moment when Abraham children became a nation.
Where does it say that in the Torah?
Read it. It starts with God trying to make a covenant with humanity, it fails, and then he picks one person, and says he will make him into a huge nation, and after they become big, redeem them...
Doesn’t say any of the sort of thing in the Torah.
What’s also very interesting is that all nevua ended. Why is it that nevua was stopped at the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash and hasn’t returned?