In the frum community we are not really into "proofs". And I never heard of this proof or most "proofs" except from kiruv material. But now that you brought it up, it does seem quite compelling in the context of everything else in the Torah. On its own, its certainly not an ironclad proof, and even with open miracles, one can come up with naturalistic explanations like you did here. But it's not what we would a priori expect from a fantasy religion that's at the very least (even according to academics) over 2500 years old. It's not a "proof" on its own, but it's definitely a חיזוק for our אמונה.
That's hardly true across the board, but either it seems you don't get the purpose of this blog. Refer to to this post https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/introduction for a description.
However, I do wonder. You seem like a smart guy. Do you not believe there needs to be a rational basis for belief?
I certainly believe there is a strong rational basis for our beliefs. We already discussed the Oral Law and Mesorah. As for the Torah itself, I believe the Torah is a historical work, and that Bible criticism is a really poor attempt at historical revisionism. But that's probably a conversation for a future post of yours.
so that is evidence for the truth of judaism. theres no real difference between the kuzari proof, other evidence that that torah is a historical account, or the argument from jewish survival.
Right, I just meant that we are not taught much about proofs as far as I can recall. Definitely not in the form of scientific proofs. Maybe I also heard a story or two like that, my childhood is probably further away than yours, and my memory foggier.
but by the way I was taight in cheder the story that napoleon asked a preist (which was pascal, btw) how we can prove god exists, and he answered 'the jews', and this seems to be a mainstream story said over in the lakewood crowd
Why are you only focusing on grand prophecies involving the whole nation.
What about the punishment of "Kares" (some form of early death and occasionally the death of the perpetrator's young children) that is supposed to happen to any individual committing even one of numerous sins enumerated repeatedly in the Bible.
Yet these sins were repeatedly violated throughout history by many individuals.
For instance, during the First Temple period, idolatry was widespread, the observance of Pesach was neglected as mentioned in the Tanach, and Jeremiah chastised Israel for desecrating the Shabbat, all of which are punishable by Kares. In Ezra's time, people also disregarded the Shabbat and likely committed other transgressions such as consuming forbidden fats. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands in Western Europe converted to Christianity, and a century later, many thousands in Eastern Europe were not religious, with a significant number being intentional sinners, not merely 'shogeg' (unintentional).
This raises the question: Shouldn't we have seen many people dying young, along with their children, as a consequence? Yet, has this occurred?
I am aware that the Ramban in Parshas Achrei offers some apologetics on this topic, but it is not the straightforward meaning of the verses, and it is only because he saw that Kares was not being administered that he innovated a new understanding of Kares.
There are many prophecies which weren't fulfilled, including many specific ones, however there are apologetics to get out of it, so the entire enterprise ends up being unfalsifiable. Therefore I did not choose to focus on general prophecies, rather these specific ones which at first glance seem to be miraculous in its own right.
With regards to your example, it doesn't bother me that much because the biblical concept of kares has nothing to do with dying young, and I don't have a problem with rejecting the rabbinic interpretation. However, the general lack of justice in the world I believe constitutes a decently strong evidential argument against the existence of any form of Abrahamic God, as we would expect to see some difference in result based on the merits of ones actions (although I can't say we would expect to see immediate or obvious results, but at least the polls should turn up something! This is also not a slam dunker but it is def not what we expect under abrahamic theism, so the whole hypothesis loses a couple points.)
Many scholars argue that ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה is the converse of ויאסף אל עמיו, which has something to do with the biblical concept of the afterlife, but is likely interwoven in the lot of עמיו, which refers to the ברית, and this is supported various references throughout the torah (menachem leibtag and richard steiner)
Well in the Bible there is no concept of an afterlife so what are the ramifications of your understanding if not dying young.
Additionally, Onkelos, who translates the Bible according to its plain meaning uses the same word for Kares that he uses for words with the root of "kalah" and "shemad" which are both used in the Bible for physical destruction.
So first of all the translation of the word means to cut off from his nation. That that is indisputable. Even if you don't understand what that means that's not a good reason to say it means something about death. What does that have to do with the nation.
Additionally, the Torah says about many different people ויאסף אל עמיו. Whatever that means, kares seems to mean the opposite of that.
Also, it's not true that the Torah doesn't believe in the afterlife at all. What is doresh El hameisim, and how did Saul bring up Samuel after he died. The consensus today is that the bible believes in what is called Sheol, which is the netherworld where dead people go, and some argue that there are various levels or positions within Sheol. This might have made your differences with the rabbinic concept of the afterlife, but it doesn't seem to be that they didn't believe in it at all.
Again, I am confused in what the specific inference is. Is it that if the Torah includes prophecy that is weird to predict, and then the prophecy is fulfilled it means the predictor was divinely inspired? I don’t understand why that follows? Why does it matter if it’s a weird prophecy to make or one that is expected? How likely is it for a book to make weird prophecies?
You say that last post was more about Jewish survival and this was is about prophecy. I think there was a miscommunication or a misunderstanding on my part because I thought you explicitly said last post that you were arguing from the prophecy and not merely from Jewish survival.
Both of them are evidence because of the prophecies. The primary argument is not merely from the unexplained occurrences, but rather from the fulfillment of the prophecies and the seeming confirmation of the Torahs divinity. However, even in that there are two levels: 1: the fulfillment of the prophecy is statistically very low, so is extremely unlikely under naturalism, 2: even if the events themselves are explained to not be so unlikely, the fact that the prophecy predicted it is evidence in its own right. The first post deals with the first point, and this post deals with the second.
Can you explain the second point please? If the prediction isn’t a particularly surprising event, why does the fact that someone predicted it infer to divinity?
The hypothesis of the torah being divine predicts met the prophecies will line up with reality, well the hypothesis that the torah is man made predicts that the prophecies will be modeled based after the interests of the authors and with the little relation to reality.
In the frum community we are not really into "proofs". And I never heard of this proof or most "proofs" except from kiruv material. But now that you brought it up, it does seem quite compelling in the context of everything else in the Torah. On its own, its certainly not an ironclad proof, and even with open miracles, one can come up with naturalistic explanations like you did here. But it's not what we would a priori expect from a fantasy religion that's at the very least (even according to academics) over 2500 years old. It's not a "proof" on its own, but it's definitely a חיזוק for our אמונה.
That's hardly true across the board, but either it seems you don't get the purpose of this blog. Refer to to this post https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/introduction for a description.
However, I do wonder. You seem like a smart guy. Do you not believe there needs to be a rational basis for belief?
Seems I missed that post, apologies.
I certainly believe there is a strong rational basis for our beliefs. We already discussed the Oral Law and Mesorah. As for the Torah itself, I believe the Torah is a historical work, and that Bible criticism is a really poor attempt at historical revisionism. But that's probably a conversation for a future post of yours.
so that is evidence for the truth of judaism. theres no real difference between the kuzari proof, other evidence that that torah is a historical account, or the argument from jewish survival.
Right, I just meant that we are not taught much about proofs as far as I can recall. Definitely not in the form of scientific proofs. Maybe I also heard a story or two like that, my childhood is probably further away than yours, and my memory foggier.
i'll never forget it. I probably heard it from my grandmother (a bona fide rebbitzin) like 100 times
but by the way I was taight in cheder the story that napoleon asked a preist (which was pascal, btw) how we can prove god exists, and he answered 'the jews', and this seems to be a mainstream story said over in the lakewood crowd
Why are you only focusing on grand prophecies involving the whole nation.
What about the punishment of "Kares" (some form of early death and occasionally the death of the perpetrator's young children) that is supposed to happen to any individual committing even one of numerous sins enumerated repeatedly in the Bible.
Yet these sins were repeatedly violated throughout history by many individuals.
For instance, during the First Temple period, idolatry was widespread, the observance of Pesach was neglected as mentioned in the Tanach, and Jeremiah chastised Israel for desecrating the Shabbat, all of which are punishable by Kares. In Ezra's time, people also disregarded the Shabbat and likely committed other transgressions such as consuming forbidden fats. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands in Western Europe converted to Christianity, and a century later, many thousands in Eastern Europe were not religious, with a significant number being intentional sinners, not merely 'shogeg' (unintentional).
This raises the question: Shouldn't we have seen many people dying young, along with their children, as a consequence? Yet, has this occurred?
I am aware that the Ramban in Parshas Achrei offers some apologetics on this topic, but it is not the straightforward meaning of the verses, and it is only because he saw that Kares was not being administered that he innovated a new understanding of Kares.
There are many prophecies which weren't fulfilled, including many specific ones, however there are apologetics to get out of it, so the entire enterprise ends up being unfalsifiable. Therefore I did not choose to focus on general prophecies, rather these specific ones which at first glance seem to be miraculous in its own right.
With regards to your example, it doesn't bother me that much because the biblical concept of kares has nothing to do with dying young, and I don't have a problem with rejecting the rabbinic interpretation. However, the general lack of justice in the world I believe constitutes a decently strong evidential argument against the existence of any form of Abrahamic God, as we would expect to see some difference in result based on the merits of ones actions (although I can't say we would expect to see immediate or obvious results, but at least the polls should turn up something! This is also not a slam dunker but it is def not what we expect under abrahamic theism, so the whole hypothesis loses a couple points.)
How do you understand the biblical concept of Kares?
Many scholars argue that ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה is the converse of ויאסף אל עמיו, which has something to do with the biblical concept of the afterlife, but is likely interwoven in the lot of עמיו, which refers to the ברית, and this is supported various references throughout the torah (menachem leibtag and richard steiner)
It means you lose your place in the covenant of the jewish people
Well in the Bible there is no concept of an afterlife so what are the ramifications of your understanding if not dying young.
Additionally, Onkelos, who translates the Bible according to its plain meaning uses the same word for Kares that he uses for words with the root of "kalah" and "shemad" which are both used in the Bible for physical destruction.
So first of all the translation of the word means to cut off from his nation. That that is indisputable. Even if you don't understand what that means that's not a good reason to say it means something about death. What does that have to do with the nation.
Additionally, the Torah says about many different people ויאסף אל עמיו. Whatever that means, kares seems to mean the opposite of that.
Also, it's not true that the Torah doesn't believe in the afterlife at all. What is doresh El hameisim, and how did Saul bring up Samuel after he died. The consensus today is that the bible believes in what is called Sheol, which is the netherworld where dead people go, and some argue that there are various levels or positions within Sheol. This might have made your differences with the rabbinic concept of the afterlife, but it doesn't seem to be that they didn't believe in it at all.
Again, I am confused in what the specific inference is. Is it that if the Torah includes prophecy that is weird to predict, and then the prophecy is fulfilled it means the predictor was divinely inspired? I don’t understand why that follows? Why does it matter if it’s a weird prophecy to make or one that is expected? How likely is it for a book to make weird prophecies?
You say that last post was more about Jewish survival and this was is about prophecy. I think there was a miscommunication or a misunderstanding on my part because I thought you explicitly said last post that you were arguing from the prophecy and not merely from Jewish survival.
Both of them are evidence because of the prophecies. The primary argument is not merely from the unexplained occurrences, but rather from the fulfillment of the prophecies and the seeming confirmation of the Torahs divinity. However, even in that there are two levels: 1: the fulfillment of the prophecy is statistically very low, so is extremely unlikely under naturalism, 2: even if the events themselves are explained to not be so unlikely, the fact that the prophecy predicted it is evidence in its own right. The first post deals with the first point, and this post deals with the second.
Can you explain the second point please? If the prediction isn’t a particularly surprising event, why does the fact that someone predicted it infer to divinity?
Because we still don't expect him to be able to predict it, especially if it would be counterintuitive for him to do so
But why does that mean divinity? What’s the inference?
The hypothesis of the torah being divine predicts met the prophecies will line up with reality, well the hypothesis that the torah is man made predicts that the prophecies will be modeled based after the interests of the authors and with the little relation to reality.
Why does the non-divine hypotheses align with something little to reality? Maybe the author/authors were trying to predict the future accurately?
I feel like I’m missing something?