Questions about faith
- Regarding the Khazari witness argument, it can be argued that there are gaps in the continuity of the tradition, while the argument is based on the continuous transmission of the testimony, by a large number of witnesses from each generation. According to critics, the Bible itself testifies to the lack of continuity in tradition, first in the Book of Judges: "And there arose another generation after them that knew not the Lord, nor the work that he had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10), and again in the Book of Kings: "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, The book of the law I have found in the house of the Lord… And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. … And they commanded The king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah the king's servant, saying, Go, inquire of the LORD in the presence of me, and in the presence of the people, and in the presence of all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers hearkened not unto the words of the LORD. "This book is to do according to all that is written concerning us." (2 Kings 22:8-13). Also, there is further evidence of the reception of the Torah not from a tradition passed down from fathers to sons, in the event of Ezra's reading of the Torah to the people on the Feast of Tabernacles. How can the argument of the Khozari be reconciled in this regard?
- A few days ago I saw an article on Ynet about archaeological findings of idolatrous statues from the 9th millennium BC (to the best of my memory). I know of many theories that reconcile the age of the world with the biblical story, but most of them refer to the date of the creation of man as a founding date in human culture, before which man resembled a speechless animal (and certainly idolatry is an action at some intellectual level above that of an ordinary animal). How can findings such as these be reconciled?
- How can we explain the historical dating gaps between the Sages and modern research:
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
- In my opinion, the discovery of the book in the days of Josiah proves the antiquity of the Torah, since it is clear from the description that everyone knew that there was a Torah and it disappeared, and when they found it, everyone understood that it was that Torah that was and is no more. The Khazari's argument by itself is not that strong. But when you combine it with the conclusion that there is a God in the philosophical sense, and with the special history of our people and its influence on the world, it becomes stronger. There is no certainty in anything. A generation that did not know what God did for Israel is again a generation that forgot that knowledge existed. What do you think? If you accept the biblical description that there was such a generation, then also accept that it forgot what they once knew.
- I am not involved in settling the dates, because of the multitude of excuses and the impossibility of saying anything intelligent and verifiable about them.
- I did not deal with these discrepancies. It would be worth asking Rabbi Midan and Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun, who dealt with this and have explanations (I once heard from them, they are my friends, and I no longer remember).
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer