I am not denying the Torah’s divine origin; I am saying that it is very hard to be certain of it. As mentioned, you can see that almost everyone either continues in the religion of his ancestors or denies religion entirely. If it were so clear that the Torah and the Jewish religion are true, we would expect to see many more people becoming convinced of it.

(Just regarding archaeology—there is nothing really troubling there once you get into it and really know the details. But I won’t interfere; carry on.)

I’ll say it again: if that is the result of your probabilistic calculation, then that is the result. What are you asking me?

A question for M:
What do you mean that there is nothing really troubling there? Regarding which part or parts of the Bible is there broad agreement among biblical scholars that the text is reliable? Or did you mean something else?

I’ll try to sharpen the question:
Even if we ourselves are sure, to one degree or another, that God exists and that the Jewish religion is the truth, wouldn’t it still be preferable for us to bet on morality, and that way we also come out “okay” from every direction? If there is no God—we have not lost too much. If there is a God and the Jewish religion is right / not right—I assume that if God is good He will not “be angry.”

Again, I’m saying that if these are your premises, then the rest is just calculation. Do you want me to approve the calculation for you?

I am asking whether, in your opinion, these premises are correct or not, and why.

I do not share your premises because, in my opinion, God gave the Torah at Sinai and demands of us all the commandments, including those that seem immoral. Whoever does not observe them will be punished.

In any case, I wonder whether the question is theoretical or practical, because in practice none of us is forced to do “immoral” things in day-to-day life. After all, even according to Jewish law, if we see a run-over Filipino baby lying on the sidewalk on the Sabbath, in practice we would have to save him, even if one follows the mainstream view that it is only “because of enmity.” Because the probability that someone will notice the case and that it will become public and cause desecration of God’s name / enmity is very high. The annihilation of Amalek is not currently relevant, and that Jewish law applies to the days of the Messiah. In days when we will know and see in an absolute way that this really is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the 100% right thing to do (something like prophecy) . Not participating in same-sex weddings, or not participating in civil marriages where the values between Jews and gentiles are involved, are not “an immoral act.” Likewise, not taking part in various secular social events that simply do not fit the religious way of life (like mixed dancing and parties). And regarding chained women, mamzerim, and the like, none of us is obligated to be in a position that permits or does not permit things in those issues. So everything is fine. Maybe the only issue where there might be a conflict that is relevant to the average person in everyday life is the attitude toward non-Jewish Israelis (immigrants from the former Soviet Union and the like).

Hell is full of people who thought God would forgive them.

It seems to me that the probability that they could have predicted in advance what is stated in the Hebrew Bible without the intervention of “the One who tells the end from the beginning” is extremely low. Even relatively uncomplicated things, like the destruction of the Second Temple happening after a minimum of 483 years, as Daniel does in chapter 9, are not simple. All the more so with more complex and detailed prophecies, like Moses’ prophecy about the future of the Jewish people, or Ezekiel’s prophecy about the destruction of Tyre. And all those prophets obligate you to respond to the commandments in the Torah.

Doron—I’m talking about the practical arguments. When you get down to details, you see that the plain meaning of the data fits the biblical background very well. Beyond that, you discover that the gap between written record and archaeological finds exists throughout the entire history of the Land of Israel. The written documentation flatly contradicts the findings quite a few times, including in cases unrelated to the Bible. When you understand those two things—the general fit with the biblical outline, and the fact that contradictory details exist vis-à-vis written documentation even outside the biblical context—the penny drops that there are not really any difficulties.

There are certainly good questions in biblical studies. But in archaeology, at this point, I feel there are none.