Biblical trivia.

I'm passing on a comment from Moshe here:

I'm a little bothered by the style of God's form in the Bible. He appears in a rather idolatrous form, wanting everyone to worship him and then gets angry and takes revenge when it doesn't happen.

Answer to Yosefon: Have you ever seen another idolatrous form that takes revenge on someone who doesn't worship it?
After all, God made a covenant with us, and not just with us but with our ancestors and our descendants forever, that we would not serve anyone but Him. Is that clear?
 
 
1b. What is the Rabbi's view in the Bible regarding how we should relate to the actions of its heroes? Did Isaac dig wells of water to water his flock and establish himself or did he actually repair the Philistine wall?

Answer: In my opinion, I didn't find the connection between these wells and the wall of the Philistines and how digging them repairs the wall of the Philistines, but what makes sense is that a person digs a well because he needs water for himself and our descendants. Therefore, it does not seem to me that he repaired the Philistine foreskin, it reminds me of Christians who believe that the names of Jesus correct the sins of all generations of his believers – it is the same style. And by the way, if he repaired their foreskin, what sin did we inherit from them? And who said that the Gentiles are forbidden to worship idols?

In the fifth notebook, you claim that the proofs for Judaism are nothing but probabilities. On the other hand, you noted that we will never know if these foreskins are good, because if we are Christians, then don't we see them as real? Intuition will always lie to us:
2a. Is there really no philosophical argument that can support the truth of a particular religion, such as the argument from the witness, or does the fact that Christianity and Islam accept the status of Mount Sinai give Judaism some advantage?
Answer: First of all, let's start with the fact that Christianity is a lie, and Muslims and Islam are certainly a lie. Because Christianity distorted the Torah by turning it into a second and old one and invented a new Torah and called it the New Covenant that contradicts the agreements in the first Torah.
And Islam also distorted our Torah and changed it to their liking in order to emphasize that they are the ones desired in the eyes of God and not our father Jacob or our father Isaac. Therefore, Muhammad is a false prophet and his Torah is a lie. Plain and simple. And if we build our faith on lies, what are we worth?
Conclusion: Judaism exists by virtue of keeping the covenant with God. It seems to me that we are now in hiding, and we must, we must, we must, the Sanhedrin to make some precisions in the laws that need precision and rapid change. Thus, we will be more beloved to God and His care for us will increase and this will lead to unity, which is a great blessing and just as God One like this, the people of Israel should be one (united). Pray that we will have a Sanhedrin.
And as soon as there is a Sanhedrin, all good will come upon us, and the Messiah will come quickly, because this is what is written in the Torah, when we return to the commandments according to the Torah – without the changes we have made over time for such and such reasons, then this will be the proof that there is a G-d and His Torah is true as it is written: : “On that day the G-d will be one and His name one” and this is a great thing. And if you pay attention to every religion that is based on the Torah - it survives. For one simple reason that they indirectly believe in Him’ who created the world and this is already a great privilege for them!
2b. Is the claim that God creates several religions similar to different battalions in the army plausible?
Answer: It is not possible, and from the beginning Jesus was a Jew and behaved according to Jewish laws. Similarly, Ishmael followed the custom of Abraham, but over time they moved away and believed and associated other idols, and today they believe in God and in Muhammad his prophet, and I have already proven that Muhammad was a false prophet because he distorted our Torah.
On the other hand, to be precise, we should note that if God chose us from all the nations, then He leaves the other nations to live if they observe the rational commandments between man and man. This does not mean that God creates several religions. There is only one law and that is the Torah, but only the Jews will break the Torah, and not the Gentiles or the other nations.
2c. Why actually assume that if we were Christians, the arguments would not convince us, and if we are secular, the philosophical evidence for the existence of God would not convince us (perhaps)? To understand that there is a God, no matter what kind of person you are and what sector you belong to, logically it is enough to look at the creation that He created - you must perceive that there is someone who created everything and watches over the world. And if you are blind, use your sense of touch and understand that if there are things in the world, then someone created everything because nothing creates itself and necessarily there is someone who created everything and no one created him because he always asked who came out of the Creator who created the Creator before him. Therefore, there must be one Creator who is wise and unlimited in his abilities and he is one and whole, pure and holy and loves to do good and therefore created the world and placed us in it. And we Jews must keep his Torah. And the Gentiles must keep the commandments of reason because they did not accept the Torah.

Peace and blessings, Your Honor.
Could you please explain a little more about your position regarding the place that the Bible occupies in Judaism in our generation? Since we see in your previous answer to Josephon that there are parts of the Bible (or at least expressions) that are not suitable for our generation. So what is suitable and what is not, is it only certain expressions that are not suitable for the modern spirit today that can be renounced (to one degree or another) or also commandments that seem “primitive”?
And regardless of the previous paragraph, I wanted to ask how the Torah story about Noah's Ark “entered” the rabbi's worldview? (That is, according to the neo-Darwinist view). Since there are no known findings about a flood that swept the entire world a few years ago to the point of disappearing the tops of the mountains (is this physically possible?).

Thank you very much for all the insightful answers and your willingness to discuss every question. May there be more like you in Israel!!!

Hello Haim.
I wrote here my opinion on studying the Bible (and not on the Bible itself) in our time. In my opinion, there is not much value in studying it, at least today, for many reasons. I added that it may have been more appropriate in the past (although it is a fact that even today quite a few people do find value and taste in it).
The term “disowns” is too strong. I am too naive to judge the Bible. What I am saying is that the style of the prophet is adapted to his listeners (no two prophets prophesy in the same style), and therefore there may be listeners to whom it does not speak, at least some of the prophecies.
Regarding changing the law, the situation is different, because there are technical limitations of authority. Therefore, each question must be discussed on its merits. In the trilogy I am currently working on, there is a detailed discussion of changes in the law.

Regarding the flood and Noah's Ark, search here on the site. There were several discussions and there are interesting sights and interesting opinions.

Haim, regarding the flood – you can contact me and I will send you part of my article on the subject. Regarding biblical pettiness – it should be remembered that we judge the Bible in light of the later theological development (which came about for a reason! ) If we judge it in light of the religious situation that preceded it – things will be explained completely differently. The Bible is a kind of document designed to change, bend and balance the pagan theology that was then much more rampant than we think. Idolism was a worldview, solid as science, viral and contagious as a smartphone. When you read it like this, you take these expressions in proportion. It is clear as day, for example, that divine wrath is not like ours: ”Why does God always first turn to Abraham or Moses to express His wrath? Why doesn't He act immediately? According to Ezekiel 22:23-33, God actually wants the prophets to resist His wrathful plans. In any case, the prophets repel the divine punishment with a considerable degree of success. If God's wrath were as great as he claimed, Moses' prayer would not have gone well. For us, there is an important statement here that is more than seeking to teach about divine capriciousness; it is intended to give incomprehensible power and responsibility to man. Among the gods, it was unthinkable to argue with the gods. They are uncontrollable and unpredictable like a Mastiff. Alternatively, they are overshadowed by an impersonal and transcendent authority that cannot be communicated. Here is another quote from the very important book, which expands on all this (and is wonderfully readable and fascinating) “The Personality of God - Johannes Moffs:”Truth be told, the pagan deities are not always superhuman. There are gods who are less human than mortals, sometimes to the point of embarrassment. In contrast, the humanity of the biblical God is an expression of his superiority. Although he is sometimes afflicted with a super-divine lordship (which is not appropriate for a bourgeois deity), this anthropomorphic deity is generally a model of the superhuman, a kind of superhuman man represented by the (Urmensch) compared to the primal man (Übermensch)
The second type of pagan anthropomorphism. As we have shown, God's adoption of Israel and his entering into a covenant with them certainly illustrate the superhumanity of his character. Another illustration of this is the wrath of his anger, which is of the kind that appears in a betrayed lover. Such rage, which seemingly does not befit the divine at all, is the clear hallmark of human dignity. ” And here all this was worth quoting for the sharpened definition: ”bourgeois divinity”. Alas, as befitting as it is, some of the synagogues I know are good for completing the minyan, to stop the itch that every religious person experiences three times a day. So I went in and scratched a prayer, browsed through ”a small world” and yet another advertisement for a faith school, ”a rather cute one”, and I go back to being a bourgeois neo-Orthodox. But the living, vibrant divinity that you can shout at, and cry before – If I have sought it, if I believe in the continuity between the God of the Bible, the God of the Temple, and the Temple of the Temple, then I will surely have to set foot in another minyan. I have reached out and found it. (And whoever reads the full conclusion of the book “The Personality of God,” written by the masterful Professor Israel Knohl, will find that this tension I spoke of is alive and kicking among the elite of religious biblical scholars today.)