The principle of tradition and trust in the people of delivery

I thought of some evidence to the contrary:
1. If it is easy to plant a nationally significant event in the national memory of people in the distant past, I would expect that there would be such a planting in several different nations (i.e., that there would be several parallel stories about mass revelations), but to the best of my knowledge, the story of the mass revelation in Egypt is the only story. This is also stated in the verses:
For ask now of the former days that were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and of the end of the heavens, and of the end of the heavens: Has this great thing been, or has it been heard as it is? 33 The people heard the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you heard, and lived. 33 Or God tested him, to go and take for himself a nation from another nation, by signs, by wonders, by war, by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes.
2. If people's sense of criticism in the past was minimal, then just as they easily accept a made-up, groundbreaking national event as a real occurrence, another person should come after some time who will make them believe in another national event that will replace the doctrine of the first event. Christianity is supposedly something similar, except that the beginning of faith is not in a groundbreaking national event, but in a revelation to an individual.
3. Regarding the perception of people in the past as gullible and stupid, I think we need to separate scientific knowledge from the level of judgment of the average person. It is true that once most people did not know what causes lightning or whether the Earth is round, but in my opinion they did have an ability similar to today to make synthetic considerations – What is meant by this expression is the ability to liken one thing to another, the ability to generalize by induction from the past to the future or from the particular to the general, the ability to distinguish between something more and less moral, and the ability to distinguish between a truthful person and a liar. Regarding such synthetic considerations, even today we do not have special scientific or philosophical criteria with which we work in this field.

And it's a shame.

1. I don't have enough information to answer.
2. This is not true, after religion captured them with a fat set of commandments, it imprisoned them. By silencing their ability to detach themselves from the past. For example, the commandment of tefillin is a reminder that God brought us out of Egypt with an outstretched arm. And so are many, many more of the commandments. (Which of course developed too late to accept the story)
3. This is a dubious claim, we have no evidence one way or the other. And we know that in other areas, according to modern eyes, they failed miserably. We are left with no choice but to claim that they were like that in other areas.

1. The very fact that you don't have enough information in the extract to answer is telling me. After all, even peoples very far from us heard about the mass revelation at Sinai, while we haven't heard about the mass revelation of distant peoples.
2. Just as it is easy to manipulate people in the past and implant a seminal event in their collective memory, it should be equally easy to manipulate them into believing that it never happened in the first place.
3. It is not right to draw a line from the realm of scientific knowledge to the realm of synthetic judgment, these are two different realms. At the very least, there is a presumption here (a presumption that the judgment of people in the past is similar to that of today) and the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

1. How do you know that other nations heard about the status of Mount Sinai and the revelation?
2. Surely you agree that it is not every day that they try to implant a founding national event. Therefore, it is possible that they only tried about 1500 years later, and by then the people were already smart enough not to accept a new event.
3. Scientific knowledge is synthetic knowledge, and when we see that it was not true, synthetic knowledge is also like that. You can read about the connection, for example, of causality and induction in truth and not stable

1. I meant that at this time, it is reasonable to assume that a person who asks himself questions in faith like you, only belonging to a different and distant people, has probably heard about the Bible. By the same token, you too should have heard (at this time) about the story of mass revelation that is relevant to his distant people.
2. If it is an easy process, why doesn't it happen every day?
3. Scientific knowledge is the accumulation of the fruits of synthetic thinking effort, it is not the thinking process itself. Over time, scientific knowledge has accumulated and become a significant thing, but that does not mean that the ability to think has changed. It is like having a person who earns X amount of money every month. Over time, the money he has in the bank has accumulated to be a very large amount. But the fact that he has a lot of money in the bank does not mean that his profit per month has changed, it remains the same (X).

Thanks,
2. Because it just doesn't happen. Have you ever heard of someone trying to convince an entire nation of a historical fact in the past without any clear interest?

2. If so, why would it happen even once? What do you think, if it is a process that is very rare to happen, then it would not happen even once, and if it is not that rare, why would it happen exactly once? It is more likely to happen at least several times

Because even though it's rare, it can happen.. and it did happen…
A miracle is also rare… (Although it's not correct to talk about rarity but about probability, and the religious will argue that it's 1.)