My book on the Kuzari Argument is finally finished!
It's available on Amazon. Buy a copy for yourself, one for your friends, one for your family - one for everyone you know! Well, at least one for yourself.
Why do I have this odd feeling that the book won't be reviewed--even critically--by any of the standard Orthodox publications, such as Ami or Mishpacha ;-)
Any chance of this being published through some other commercial venue, such as Lulu? I am willing to pay $20 for a printed copy of the book, but I really hate seeing my money go to Amazon.
Kuzari contains more than the so called KP, it contains many more falsehoods and misunderstandings of Torah, and logic. As for R' Gottlieb's rendering, he was criticized previously by a number of skeptics including Ephraim Rubin, and Prof Mark Perakh. he was forced to accept that it is false in his response to Rubin https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2014/12/kuzari-principle-is-false-admits-its.html
There are also anti-Karaite polemics in the Kuzari whiich are also false. see this for example https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2014/05/yehudah-halevi-kuzari-cannot-read-hebrew.html
Ben Mikra - I have written many posts about 'Kuzari" argument-principle. R. Gottlieb critiqued one of my posts and I responded. He has never countered my points. He began by incorrectly assuming I misunderstood the principle because I failed to mention event of type E, even though I mentioned type E event in the very post he critiqued ! However, I have written about events of type E in prior posts which he chose to ignore even though he knows about my prior posts. I also clarified this issue when I slightly modified my original posts. I think you will enjoy reading my exchange with RG - read http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13_28.html then http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html If you want to read all my Kuzari posts in order start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html Shalom
Im not able to comment on your blog. Most BTs, at least yeshiva / hareidi brands, succeed in closing their minds. So to criticise their reasoning becomes very traumatic. Computer codes, kuzari, rebbe moshiach etc are successful brainwashing techniques, so that even when disproven, people continue to believe.
RG is generally very dishonest, the majority of what he teaches is false. For example, he denies that the neviim after Moses ever made prophecies. I heard this from the horse's mouth. He claims they saw mystical dreams but no testable predictions. So either hes a liar or a fool. My approach is that such a person cannot be relied upon as a mentor or guide. Also, his academic career was not a great success, he published very little, and his 1 book was taken apart by peers.
"For example, he denies that the neviim after Moses ever made prophecies. I heard this from the horse's mouth. He claims they saw mystical dreams but no testable predictions." Not sure where he coming from. Perhaps Rambam ? Anyway, usually the prophets threaten and are not really making predictions. Even Torah does this. There may be some exceptions for example see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html RG's claim will protect him from my blog post, but that leaves him without a proof from prophecies. He does use proof from prophecy based on Deuteronomy or Leviticus claiming they predict the Roman invasion. However, the Torah itself was only providing threats do this and bad will happen, do that and good will happen. Also the book Bondage of the Mind tears apart the RG proof by explaining the Torah could not have been describing the Roman invasion !
He makes up a lot of stuff. In academia, there is peer review, so someone who publishes nonsense will be taken down. India Shiva they can virtually say anything they like because their colleagues will only praise them it's just a game they play They praise each other. No, one has to study and survey the entire prophetic literature to see if they make predictions and they do- they make many predictions. Nathan makes predictions about the throne of David for example. he then he contradicts himself or limits it. Isaiah is full of predictions jeremias full of Predictions. Isaiah says days are coming referring to the messianic era that can't be a phrase speaking of the very distant future it's an imminent prediction. It's true that the book of Daniel is very difficult to decode and is in dreamy language but that's the exception to the rule. If - then predictions are very important. They may be warnings but they're also predictions and can be tested to see whether they came true. Apparently many of these predictions never occurred but he would make some wiggle room for himself to get out of that.
"If - then predictions are very important." except good luck verifying the 'if conditions'; anyway I wrote a series of posts rejecting proofs based on prophecy. start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html BTW - non commercial, I get no compensation and no organization or person(s) are behind me.
Alter cocker - I also use Blogger, and it is very difficult to put together a series of articles. You might want to take your material, and edit it so it is clearer, and the counter-arguments are clearer - right now it is difficult to see who is saying what. Perhaps set up a new blog dedicated to Kuzari argument, and annotate it well :)
Some of my posts are better written and clearer than others. I thought the Miracle of Sun was pretty clear - I think RG sort of understood it. Then read the link to RG response. Then read my response to him. I did not respond to all his points to keep the post shorter. I also label what he writes and my response. If there is something that is not clear feel free to tag me. I think 2nd-son will allow it.
Based on conversations with theist believers it can never be clear enough for them. I have had unbiased people read my blogs and they have had no problems understanding them, especially if they read them twice. This includes gentiles. It seems the believers or people that are in too much of a rush are the ones who do not understand what I write.
Yes, it takes a bit of reading. I'm presuming Rabbi refers to RG.? In any case, his argument is based on a universal cognitive arguments which he says applies universally but this is something he's simply made up himself he is is not a psychologist or research of psychology. He belittles Sciences and psychology then he claims to be the master a universal psychologist himself which fits in with his extreme egomania which explains why he ditched academic life for rabbinic life.
RG Kuzari Principle has many issues and I think it is faulty. Yet, even it had validity I think it fails as a proof for Sinai story ! see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/11/kuzari-argument-part-8_30.html
OOPS - you may be a Theist and holy text believer. Be warned my blog is about disputing religion, holy texts and proofs for god(s); but main focus is on Orthodox Judaism.
It's worth exploring these arguments.I don't know if you were in that yeshiva or elsewhere, however, before internet blogs, there was just the peer group who discussed these points after the lecture. I also spoke to some other people outside of Ohr Sameach, who were skeptical. Even r Cardozo warned us to be skeptical of what they taught there! What is the difference between the kuzari arguments on the one hand and if it's it's able to prove anything and all the other hand looking at prophecies. Like I said if there are any predictions which do not come true or in fact promises made which are false then that weakens or disproves the entire claim of Truth
Ben Mikra - I have never read (or heard) a valid prophecy, period. Yet, even if every alleged Tenach prophecy came true I think as an argument for the Lord it fails. See https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-4.html
You claim "2) Regarding Isaiah 43, where it is prophesied Cyrus will conquer Egypt. Page 869 JPS explains “ It is not mentioned anywhere i coudl find. Cyrus is in ch 44-45 of Isaiah, but nto in connection with Egypt. can you provide a verse?
If Micah is making a fasle prophecy he should be put to death. However, his prophecy did come true later on. And in any case, he was not executed . So you are making a straw man argument.
Thanks for checking out my bolog. Regarding Isaiah - Doubled checked and it as exactly as I wrote in my blog. JPS refers to 43:3-4. JPS probably is relating this/looking ahead to for example Isaiah 45.
Ben Mikra NO straw men. Regarding Micah - Destruction of Jerusalem did not occur in his lifetime which is almost certainly what Micah had in mind. Micah's prophecy did not mean the destruction that would occur in 586 B.C. way after he was dead; because note Jeremiah 26:17-19 which explains why the destruction did not occur during Micah's times. The prophecy was abolished by the Lord. Also Micah 3:1 is addressing the leaders of Jacob and Israel of his times telling them because of their evil ways Zion shall be plowed. This strongly suggests he was referring to the leaders of his times. }
your Prophecy - Proof argument is quite interesting, you removed it from here. In fatc it is more interesting than your various attmepts to show that X didn't really happen, etc.
your Prophecy - Proof argument is quite interesting, you removed it from here. However I think it is fallacious and a tautology. You're using speculation that the prophecies were edited after the fact and using that to prove that prophecy is false and a useless tool. You haven't provided definite proof that the prophecies were tailored after the fact hands it's not a proof.
You must mean part 4 ? here is link http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-4.html NO, I am not using my alleged speculation to prove prophecy is false. I am not engaging in tautology or using fallacious reasoning. I am providing a plausible and reasonable natural explanation of the alleged extraordinary fulfillment of Tenach prophecies.It ties in very close to conditions I mentioned in part one see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html
We know for a fact there where many more prophets and prophecies in ancient Israel than what we find in the Tenach. Yet all we have left with is what has been preserved in the Tenach. This creates an extremely biased sample and as such can not be used to draw conclusions.
If Isaiah is referring to Cyrus, and his seed was the actual invader, then it's still a valid prophecy - it's the family business. It's only your rules that insist it can only be him. But perhaps it means Israel 1967 defeat of Egypt?
Not my rules, but so says JPS. Also, Cyrus was the intended man of the prophecy, not his seed. I suggest you read Is 45 carefully and it will be clear and unbiased.
In Jeremiah, it's says 17 Some of the elders of the land stepped forward and said to the entire assembly of people,
Micah may have made a conditional prophecy. Or absolute. Jeremiah makes a conditional prophecy. No proof Micah said it will be in his lifetime. It's not a failed prophecy, it is fulfilled but delayed.
Maybe this or maybe that. Cite me where Micah makes it conditional. Again an unbiased reading of Micah indicates he refers to his generation. I updated my blog to clearly explain why.
You may try to wiggle out of the false prophecies in Tenach by inventing rationalizations, forced interpretations, alleging it REALLY MEANS this or that etc: etc: But then what are you left with ? Prophecies that can so be construed and misconstrued become meaningless.
BTW Micah's alleged prophecy is not so impressive. Assyria was already making gains in the region including parts of Israel. Nothing amazing to predict some more parts of Israel will fall. This is another reason probably Micah meant his generation. Also, even If additional parts of Israel fall during his lifetime it would not be an amazing prediction.
"Probably" - read Mark Perakh's piece on probability. You are fixated with Micah, just to say it's not impressive, big deal. You wrote a number of comments then deleted them. Perhaps you saw the fallacy. Eg JPS said it so it must be true. Missing prophets, so they must be selected out because of poor predictions! Duh! What evidence do you have about those ghost prophets?
Going back to the Gottliebian Kuzari "principle", a large part of his argument is that the Torah predicts exile for abandoment of the Torah, and redemption for full observance. he thus attempts to proove that this prediction was fulfilled.
However, at the time of the 2nd Temple, the Pharisees had just taken over from the true custodians of the Torah, namely the Kohanim. So exile/destruction could only be punishment for Phariseeic orthodoxy, which is what the yeshivas represent. On the other hand, the return and establishment of the State of israel was a largely secular movement, which was in fact opposed by a large part of the Orthodox world, and only accepted by a small Religious Zionist movement (and mainstream centrist Jews around the world). So again, Orthodoxy seems to be disproven by this prediction, and hence also the oral Law.
Do you really think the Tenach listed every prophet and prophecy they made ? Then I suggest you read the tenach more carefully and study Talmud which will dispel your notion that I am inventing ghosts. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Not sure you are getting my drift. Here it is again in a nutshell - I quote from my 4th prophecy blog post: There is no evidence the alleged extremely high prophecy success rate requires the invocation of supernatural. The high prophecy rate could be the result of a biased recording and canonization processes. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THIS. We KNOW THERE WAS CANONIZATION PROCESS. IF THE THEIST WANTS TO USE PROOF FROM PROPHECY THE BURDEN IS ON THE THEIST TO SHOW THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
"Going back to the Gottliebian Kuzari 'principle', a large part of his argument is that the Torah predicts exile for abandoment of the Torah, and redemption for full observance. he thus attempts to proove that this prediction was fulfilled." AFAIK THAT is not part of RG's Kuzari principle or Kuzari argument. I think it is a separate argument he makes that the Roman Invasion was predicted in the Torah (i.e for example Deut). The Book Bondage of the Mind refutes such a notion, plus many (if not most, including JPS) scholars believe those passages in Deut refer to the times of Babylon. I also argue the Torah is making conditions - do this then good, do that then bad. Almost a carbon copy of ANE treaties etc; SEE http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_12.html
Many more prophets were active in ancient Israel and Judah than those whose work is represented in the prophetic books of the Bible' SOURCE Page 457-458 JPS. {But I already knew this from reading Tenach and Talmud. Apparently you have not done your homework, but make false accusations that I have invented ghosts.}
If these prophets who were active had made predictions, where are they? Do you or your friends have records of what their predictions were? If yes, please publish them. If not, they are ghost prophecies.
There is not clear info on when canonization took place and by what method. Neusner points out it was the Pharisees, and that anything lost is gone and not to be found (outside of the Apocrypha). But if the Pharisees did this, their rationale would likely have been anti sadducee, rather than selection of good prophecies. They tried to excise koheleth _ not because he made false predictions, but because his philosophy was anti Pharisees.
I think I have addressed all your critiques so I will not rehash my comments. Just want to clarify something for you, but if you read my blog carefully I should not have to. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT 'when canonization took place'. It starts way before then - who was keeping records, is the record complete and that is before we get to the canonization process. I also want to repeat, the onus is not on me to prove there was no bias in the recording and cannon. The Theist using prophecy as proof needs to show that bias could not have crept into the recording and especially the cannon process. Otherwise I will just argue the excellent prophecy record is because of bias record keeping.
Isaiah 45 refers directly to Cyrus himself who will get the rewards like Egypt etc: It is a twisting of Isaiah to claim the prophecy is referring to someone other than Cyrus himself.But suit yourself.
You are proving my point by not reading what I actually write. Go back an read more slowly. In fact Micah is the only one where I do not cite JPS, LOL. However, MIcah is a good example of failed prophecy and so are the other 3 I gave. here is the link again https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html
I picked four prophecies that are false and I really can not think of a plausible way out of them for a theist claiming Tenach prophecies are true. Those four (and many argue there are others) leave me skeptical of theists who use prophecy as proof. They demand I supply some false ones and I did.
Micah prophecy came true. It's kind of ludicrous - you argue it's a false prophecy, and when challenged you distract by saying "it's a warning". You make up your own rule that it must be in his own lifetime. So even though it was fulfilled later, you still claim its false. So it's not worth debating with you.
"The conquest of Egypt, planned by Cyrus, was the major achievement of Cambyses’ reign" https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cambyses-II So his plans were fulfilled through his son, yet you still claim this was a dud prophecy. The tenach speaks in these terms, eg the offspring of the patriarchs, kings etc. Even Hezekiah was spared punishment but his offspring would suffer. So it shows an overall unfamiliarity you have with the language and tenor of the Hebrew Tanach.
"I picked four prophecies that are false and I really can not think of a plausible way out of them " This is based on your assumption that predictions need to come true in the lifetime of the predictor. However this is false / or true depending on how we define prophecy. If the prophecy is from God then his lifetime is longer than the mouthpiece/prophet. If you mean they need to occur in the lifetime of the mouthpiece, again that is false. The Torah predicts , for example, in Dev 30; 1: "And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,"
This is clearly beyond the lifetime of Moses. So there is no rule within the Torah that there needs to be immediate fulfillment - unless he is being tested for a prediction to see if he's a real prophet. But I am not aware of any of these type prophecies recorded - perhaps there are a few. There are , however, some prophecies, which are worded as being in the near future. It is not relevant whether the prophet himself sees it. He coudl die the next day, but the prediction come true a few weeks or years later. That is why ,I think, you are missing the real controversial prophecies and fixating on these petty ones. Thus, when Isaiah uses the phrase "days are coming" he is talking about the immediate future. It is very unconvincing if the is referring to end of days, i.e. thousands of years later. Thes emessianic prophecies which are told with immediacy are problematic to say the least. the other problematic one is Nathan's first prophecy to David, promising him that his throne wil be secure forever, and that he will not be exiled etc.
2 Sam 7 "15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[b]; your throne will be established forever.’”"
Now what does that forever mean? For all of Solomon's lifetime? Or was this promise later rescinded because of David's act with Bathsheba?
If so it makes other problems, i.e. even good prophecies can be rescinded (and hence are false).
If it is a true prophecy, it needs to be adhered to. I think you are chasing your tail with Micah, and cyrus, these are just arguments you picked up elsewhere.
"This is based on your assumption that predictions need to come true in the lifetime of the predictor." The context of Tenach I cite are fairly clear is was for current generation. However, some Tenach prophecy is not for the generation of the prophet. It is clear from the language of Tenach. So there is no absolute rule this way or that.
It is pretty clear Ezekiel 26 is a failed prophecy as I explain and support in my blog post https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html
I need to respond to "Micah prophecy came true. It's kind of ludicrous - you argue it's a false prophecy, and when challenged you distract by saying "it's a warning". You make up your own rule that it must be in his own lifetime. So even though it was fulfilled later, you still claim its false. So it's not worth debating with you."
I really need to address this. First I have no desire to debate with you (or anybody else). Second my blog and my comments are providing various different responses to various different arguments etc:. Lets take prophecy. For Theists who claim prophecy ABC is conditional I provide one sort of response. For Theist claiming prophecy ABC was not conditional I provide another sort of response. BTW - It seems pretty clear for some tenach 'prophecies' they were conditional; for others a theist may argue they are not conditional. Take the the Micah example - I can see a theist arguing it was not conditional; but if so then it failed unless you kvetch it REALLY meant about a century later which is obviously not the context. Jeremiah 26:17 then seems to turn Micah into a sort conditional situation in that reforms took place and the Lord revoked Micah's prophecy. (I do not think I have continued to argue MICAH was conditional because after double checking Micah I do not think I could convince a theist it was conditional.) BTW Because of our conversation I did clarify but not really change my failed prophecy post or any others. I hope the next reader will better understand it. Shalom
I am no expert on Tyre - from what little I do know - parts of ancient tyre are a protected site; however large parts of all of Tyre (including the Island) are occupied. The Tyre prophecy failed on at least one count (was not Nebuchadnezzar OR your kvetch HIS SEED), and arguably a second count that Tyre is still around and populated. Get over it.
Cyrus isn't a kvetch - his plans came true through his son. If I plan to build a clothing Empire, and send my son to Harvard, and he turns my outlet into a clothing Empire, then my aspirations have come true, through my son (who's also a doctor).
Depends. I'm not using the prophets as proof of Torah or God. I'm trying to analyze them, and compare to others such as Nostradamus, for example. Nostradamus is vague and has enough wiggle room to be applied to an event after it takes place. Hebrew prophecies are more specific. There are also more rules in the Torah as well, eg how teshuva might defer an evil outcome, but sometimes it can't. Look at the flood, and Sodom& Gomorrah. Sodom has some wiggle room if 10 just people are found. In Jeremiah that's also pervasive. So perhaps it's not always stated . Micah is a short book, so it might not contain explicit rules. If an academic scholar claims that the books were selected , he needs to provide evidence. Maybe when you do counter-kiruv you can say you don't need evidence. But in academic debate the authors can be asked to back up their claims.
"If an academic scholar claims that the books were selected , he needs to provide evidence." It is well known not all prophets and their prophecies were recorded. I can cite you Tenach, Talmud and also I gave you JPS. It is also known there was a canon process which means there was a selection process. It is also fairly established in the academic literature that the books named after a prophet have portions that are written after the death of the prophet. I think I am on solid ground here. In adduition, it is sufficient to counter any proof from prophecy.
"Cyrus isn't a kvetch". Yes it because the Tenach is directly speaking to him, that HE himself will be the beneficiary that he is the anointed multiple multiple times he is the one. What, the Lord did not know it would really be his son ? Come on. The Tennach should write the prophecy as Cyrus's seed being the beneficiary. I am not buying this kveth; sorry.
I've been reading some of this type of literature. None of it is proven. There are various opinions, what was once fashionable, is now replaced by a newer theory etc. A list of verses is alleged to have been altered by a redactor, etc.
Cyrus is indeed a kvetch and a straw man. Upon reading ch. 43 of Isaiah, it's not referring to Cyrus at all. This is an invention of jps. The chapter is adressing Israel.
And it's not a prophecy it's in the past tense
נָתַתִּי כָפְרְךָ מִצְרַיִם
Israel was given the spoils of Egypt when they left - it's already mentioned in the Torah. They took precious metals of Egypt. Hence discussion of Kambiz/ Cyrus is a red herring and a straw man.
@Ben Mikra I quoted JPS on Is. 43; now it could have been a typo on JPS part, but not sure and I doubt it. They seem to be reading all the pasukim in chapt 43 in context and in relation to each other and maybe looking at the context of Chapt 43 and several chapters perhaps, including chapt 45. They have a long intro to Isaiah and a pasuk by pasuk analysis. Also, some scholars (not just JPS) do think the prophecy was Cyrus to take Egypt includes Capt 43. Your point is moot since Chapt Is. 45 does mention Egypt in relation to Cyrus. I am deferring to JPS expertise that the Isaiah prophecy was Egypt to be given to Cyrus. Therefore I would consider that a failed prophecy. It is certainly not a red herring or straw man, unless you do not know what those fallacies really are.
Some Theists cant abide by their prophets having failed prophecies. They will ignore parts of the prophecy, interpret the prophecy out of context and invent all sorts of rationalizations. They then claim there are no false prophecies. I think it is intellectually dishonest. But even if there are allegedly no false prophecies, the argument from prophecy is flawed for the reasons I outline in my blog posts.
Lofl, what a joke. You are touting a reform jps position,which you have blind faith in. Ch 43 in total, is addressing Israel, not Cyrus. You remind me of the orthodox rabbis _ except that your oral law was also not given on Sinai, but you adhere to sergeant Pepper's 13 principles of obfuscation. And to question it is heresy, you simply shout "theist". Lol, what a joke.
There are a few options but chapter 43 does not mention Cyrus. Chapter 45 mentions choresh. So here is the complicated part if it was written contemporaneously then it could be a prophet about Cyrus the Great or it could be a prophecy about a later messianic figure called Coresh. However may not have been written contemporaneously that added at the time of Cyrus to honour him in which case there's no discussion it's not a prophecy at all. I don't see any rational way of determining when this was written. one problem for using prophecy as proof is that there is no prophecy now which can be tested why have the prophets disappeared? If there were supposedly profits during the Babylonian exile then why is this Exile any different? Shouldn't there be prophets right now?
Some of the Rabbinical comentators say this is referring to Messiah, not Cyrus, whereas a few of them say it is the historical Cyrus. I don't see JPS commenting much on Sefaria.
It doesnt make sense for it to be Cyrus, since v17 says "17 O Israel, that art saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. " which ain't happened.
you could claim it is emended later (and is still wrong) which makes it look stupid; or that it is not a perfect prophecy and applies to Cyrus. The other way of reading it is that it is a genuine contemporaneous prophecy, which has not yet occurred. Why should anyone accept your reading as authorative?
It is not my reading at all, nor do I have blind faith in anybody. JPS and other scholars agree on this -it was the historical Cyrus - the one who helped the Jews and he himself was going to get rewards for that. Ibn Ezra for example also has Is 45:14 refers to Cyrus getting Egypt. NOW if you have other traditional Jewish sources claiming it is not Cyrus then you can argue there was no false prophecy as my blog wrote. This is the problem with using prophecy as proof - they are not specific enough and even when it seems they are specific, people will argue it means something else JUST LIKE YOU HAVE doen several times already. I do not want to clog up secondson post on Kuzari with more of our discussion about prophecy. So this will be my last comment to you. Nice chatting and Shalom.
Micah's prophecy is simply a straw man you are using. The prophets were not writing books to be used in later seminars at Aish and OPhr Sameach as proofs for the torah. This method is reading backwards something into the texts which were giving a different message. So you are not impressed by Micah, yet his prophesy was delayed. These are warnings, with consquences. Jeremiah is full of these warnings, and eventually luck runs out - there is no more chance for redemption. Now some of your arguments I do agree with , eg part 1 . I would expand on Falsifiability in a more scientific sense. Also, the success of the prophet might mreely be his knack of understanding historical patterns - history repeats itself. So to say you will be conquered by a foreign enemy, crushed, disperesed etc may be a pretty normal thing in the middle east. even today , we see this in Iraq , Syria etc. Oh, but then these things were alos prophesied by Isaiah about Damascus, Bavel etc. If I predict something about Iran, or israel in the next 50 years, is it prophecy? there will be a war, and the Persians will suffer, and be brought down by a strong wind, and from above their skies. etc wanna bet about it?
I explained to you previously why it is not a straw man, do you know what the fallacy even refers to ? But overall your points in this comment of yours are basically on target. On this we agree.
Also, I started this thread pointing to Dr gottlieb (he is not a professor, since he no longer teaches at university) who denies that the neviim made predictions. The reason he does this is to avoid scrutiny of the prophets, who are not 100% accurate.
This is a very clear and explicit prophecy by Isaiah (58:13-14)
"13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof; 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD, and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."
Unfortuantely it is also false - keeping shabbat and not discussing busines does not attain wealth or hertigage or success for the individual. Many peiopel discuss business on shabbat and are successful, whereas otehrs who refrain may be destitute , not even solvent enough to get marry let alone ride on high or have many offspring.
@Ben MIkra - Perhaps Apologetic response - Isaiah 58 is about the nation not specific individuals. My blog provides fairly specific prophecies that failed. Nevertheless, even if religious argue THERE ARE NO FAILED PROPHECIES my blog explains this could have been result of the editing and recording process so the proof would fail.
This collective reward idea is a fallacy, since there is always a get out clause - that guy in Timbaktu was not shomer shabbat, so everyone else must go through a holocaust. Easy to make such fake predictions. Sorry, I am being the skeptic today
@Ben Mikra "Easy to make such fake predictions.." Agreed and I have made the same point in my blog posts. Isaiah 58 is about the nation not specific individuals. That if the whole nation observes Shabbas. Like you say it becomes meaningless. Also how do you test for it etc: etc: see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_12.html DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A SKEPTIC, I encourage it.
The prophecy starts by addressing fasting. Some people complained. Did a whole nation have access to Isaiah and complain or just the vocal group? His answer in the case of shabbat - Im Tashiv is voiced to the individual. For those who believe in olam haba, it might be very disappointing if they are told it was a group reward only, and some people were reform, hence no olam haba.
@Ben Mikra - Isaiah is responding to what appears WIDESPREAD issues and is addressing the nation as a whole. An Apologetic response could be that that it is a stretch to argue it is a prophecy for an individual. I will check the hebrew grammar, but even so it could be just rhetoric style. Isaiah was probably encouraging the nation to keep the Sabbath.
Congratulations!
ReplyDeleteAvailable in Kindle format?
Probably eventually.
DeleteOddly, Amazon takes a much larger cut - around double - from sales of ebooks than of physical copies.
Check your email and delete this comment. Thnx
ReplyDeletePublish this on Google Books
ReplyDeleteWhy do I have this odd feeling that the book won't be reviewed--even critically--by any of the standard Orthodox publications, such as Ami or Mishpacha ;-)
ReplyDeleteMazel Tuv
ReplyDeleteAny chance of this being published through some other commercial venue, such as Lulu? I am willing to pay $20 for a printed copy of the book, but I really hate seeing my money go to Amazon.
ReplyDeleteIs it on Kindle Unlimited?
ReplyDeleteKuzari contains more than the so called KP, it contains many more falsehoods and misunderstandings of Torah, and logic.
ReplyDeleteAs for R' Gottlieb's rendering, he was criticized previously by a number of skeptics including Ephraim Rubin, and Prof Mark Perakh. he was forced to accept that it is false in his response to Rubin
https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2014/12/kuzari-principle-is-false-admits-its.html
There are also anti-Karaite polemics in the Kuzari whiich are also false. see this for example
https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2014/05/yehudah-halevi-kuzari-cannot-read-hebrew.html
Ben Mikra - I have written many posts about 'Kuzari" argument-principle. R. Gottlieb critiqued one of my posts and I responded. He has never countered my points. He began by incorrectly assuming I misunderstood the principle because I failed to mention event of type E, even though I mentioned type E event in the very post he critiqued ! However, I have written about events of type E in prior posts which he chose to ignore even though he knows about my prior posts. I also clarified this issue when I slightly modified my original posts. I think you will enjoy reading my exchange with RG - read http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13_28.html then http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html If you want to read all my Kuzari posts in order start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html Shalom
DeleteIm not able to comment on your blog.
DeleteMost BTs, at least yeshiva / hareidi brands, succeed in closing their minds. So to criticise their reasoning becomes very traumatic.
Computer codes, kuzari, rebbe moshiach etc are successful brainwashing techniques, so that even when disproven, people continue to believe.
RG is generally very dishonest, the majority of what he teaches is false. For example, he denies that the neviim after Moses ever made prophecies. I heard this from the horse's mouth. He claims they saw mystical dreams but no testable predictions. So either hes a liar or a fool. My approach is that such a person cannot be relied upon as a mentor or guide. Also, his academic career was not a great success, he published very little, and his 1 book was taken apart by peers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"For example, he denies that the neviim after Moses ever made prophecies. I heard this from the horse's mouth. He claims they saw mystical dreams but no testable predictions." Not sure where he coming from. Perhaps Rambam ? Anyway, usually the prophets threaten and are not really making predictions. Even Torah does this. There may be some exceptions for example see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html RG's claim will protect him from my blog post, but that leaves him without a proof from prophecies. He does use proof from prophecy based on Deuteronomy or Leviticus claiming they predict the Roman invasion. However, the Torah itself was only providing threats do this and bad will happen, do that and good will happen. Also the book Bondage of the Mind tears apart the RG proof by explaining the Torah could not have been describing the Roman invasion !
DeleteHe makes up a lot of stuff. In academia, there is peer review, so someone who publishes nonsense will be taken down. India Shiva they can virtually say anything they like because their colleagues will only praise them it's just a game they play They praise each other.
DeleteNo, one has to study and survey the entire prophetic literature to see if they make predictions and they do- they make many predictions. Nathan makes predictions about the throne of David for example. he then he contradicts himself or limits it.
Isaiah is full of predictions jeremias full of Predictions.
Isaiah says days are coming referring to the messianic era that can't be a phrase speaking of the very distant future it's an imminent prediction. It's true that the book of Daniel is very difficult to decode and is in dreamy language but that's the exception to the rule.
If - then predictions are very important. They may be warnings but they're also predictions and can be tested to see whether they came true. Apparently many of these predictions never occurred but he would make some wiggle room for himself to get out of that.
"If - then predictions are very important." except good luck verifying the 'if conditions'; anyway I wrote a series of posts rejecting proofs based on prophecy. start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html BTW - non commercial, I get no compensation and no organization or person(s) are behind me.
DeleteAlter cocker - I also use Blogger, and it is very difficult to put together a series of articles. You might want to take your material, and edit it so it is clearer, and the counter-arguments are clearer - right now it is difficult to see who is saying what.
ReplyDeletePerhaps set up a new blog dedicated to Kuzari argument, and annotate it well :)
Some of my posts are better written and clearer than others. I thought the Miracle of Sun was pretty clear - I think RG sort of understood it. Then read the link to RG response. Then read my response to him. I did not respond to all his points to keep the post shorter. I also label what he writes and my response. If there is something that is not clear feel free to tag me. I think 2nd-son will allow it.
DeleteBased on conversations with theist believers it can never be clear enough for them. I have had unbiased people read my blogs and they have had no problems understanding them, especially if they read them twice. This includes gentiles. It seems the believers or people that are in too much of a rush are the ones who do not understand what I write.
DeleteYes, it takes a bit of reading. I'm presuming Rabbi refers to RG.?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, his argument is based on a universal cognitive arguments which he says applies universally but this is something he's simply made up himself he is is not a psychologist or research of psychology. He belittles Sciences and psychology then he claims to be the master a universal psychologist himself which fits in with his extreme egomania which explains why he ditched academic life for rabbinic life.
RG Kuzari Principle has many issues and I think it is faulty. Yet, even it had validity I think it fails as a proof for Sinai story ! see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/11/kuzari-argument-part-8_30.html
DeleteOOPS - you may be a Theist and holy text believer. Be warned my blog is about disputing religion, holy texts and proofs for god(s); but main focus is on Orthodox Judaism.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's worth exploring these arguments.I don't know if you were in that yeshiva or elsewhere, however, before internet blogs, there was just the peer group who discussed these points after the lecture. I also spoke to some other people outside of Ohr Sameach, who were skeptical. Even r Cardozo warned us to be skeptical of what they taught there!
DeleteWhat is the difference between the kuzari arguments on the one hand and if it's it's able to prove anything and all the other hand looking at prophecies. Like I said if there are any predictions which do not come true or in fact promises made which are false then that weakens or disproves the entire claim of Truth
Ben Mikra - I have never read (or heard) a valid prophecy, period. Yet, even if every alleged Tenach prophecy came true I think as an argument for the Lord it fails. See https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-4.html
DeleteYou claim "2) Regarding Isaiah 43, where it is prophesied Cyrus will conquer Egypt. Page 869 JPS explains “
ReplyDeleteIt is not mentioned anywhere i coudl find. Cyrus is in ch 44-45 of Isaiah, but nto in connection with Egypt. can you provide a verse?
If Micah is making a fasle prophecy he should be put to death. However, his prophecy did come true later on. And in any case, he was not executed . So you are making a straw man argument.
Thanks for checking out my bolog. Regarding Isaiah - Doubled checked and it as exactly as I wrote in my blog. JPS refers to 43:3-4. JPS probably is relating this/looking ahead to for example Isaiah 45.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBen Mikra NO straw men. Regarding Micah - Destruction of Jerusalem did not occur in his lifetime which is almost certainly what Micah had in mind. Micah's prophecy did not mean the destruction that would occur in 586 B.C. way after he was dead; because note Jeremiah 26:17-19 which explains why the destruction did not occur during Micah's times. The prophecy was abolished by the Lord. Also Micah 3:1 is addressing the leaders of Jacob and Israel of his times telling them because of their evil ways Zion shall be plowed. This strongly suggests he was referring to the leaders of his times. }
Deleteyour Prophecy - Proof argument is quite interesting, you removed it from here.
DeleteIn fatc it is more interesting than your various attmepts to show that X didn't really happen, etc.
your Prophecy - Proof argument is quite interesting, you removed it from here.
DeleteHowever I think it is fallacious and a tautology. You're using speculation that the prophecies were edited after the fact and using that to prove that prophecy is false and a useless tool. You haven't provided definite proof that the prophecies were tailored after the fact hands it's not a proof.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou must mean part 4 ? here is link http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-4.html NO, I am not using my alleged speculation to prove prophecy is false. I am not engaging in tautology or using fallacious reasoning. I am providing a plausible and reasonable natural explanation of the alleged extraordinary fulfillment of Tenach prophecies.It ties in very close to conditions I mentioned in part one see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWe know for a fact there where many more prophets and prophecies in ancient Israel than what we find in the Tenach. Yet all we have left with is what has been preserved in the Tenach. This creates an extremely biased sample and as such can not be used to draw conclusions.
DeleteIf Isaiah is referring to Cyrus, and his seed was the actual invader, then it's still a valid prophecy - it's the family business. It's only your rules that insist it can only be him. But perhaps it means Israel 1967 defeat of Egypt?
ReplyDeleteNot my rules, but so says JPS. Also, Cyrus was the intended man of the prophecy, not his seed. I suggest you read Is 45 carefully and it will be clear and unbiased.
Delete"perhaps it means Israel 1967 defeat of Egypt?" Are you joking ?
DeleteIn Jeremiah, it's says 17 Some of the elders of the land stepped forward and said to the entire assembly of people,
ReplyDeleteMicah may have made a conditional prophecy. Or absolute. Jeremiah makes a conditional prophecy. No proof Micah said it will be in his lifetime.
It's not a failed prophecy, it is fulfilled but delayed.
Maybe this or maybe that. Cite me where Micah makes it conditional. Again an unbiased reading of Micah indicates he refers to his generation. I updated my blog to clearly explain why.
DeleteYou may try to wiggle out of the false prophecies in Tenach by inventing rationalizations, forced interpretations, alleging it REALLY MEANS this or that etc: etc: But then what are you left with ? Prophecies that can so be construed and misconstrued become meaningless.
DeleteBTW Micah's alleged prophecy is not so impressive. Assyria was already making gains in the region including parts of Israel. Nothing amazing to predict some more parts of Israel will fall. This is another reason probably Micah meant his generation. Also, even If additional parts of Israel fall during his lifetime it would not be an amazing prediction.
Delete"Probably" - read Mark Perakh's piece on probability.
DeleteYou are fixated with Micah, just to say it's not impressive, big deal.
You wrote a number of comments then deleted them. Perhaps you saw the fallacy. Eg JPS said it so it must be true. Missing prophets, so they must be selected out because of poor predictions! Duh! What evidence do you have about those ghost prophets?
Going back to the Gottliebian Kuzari "principle", a large part of his argument is that the Torah predicts exile for abandoment of the Torah, and redemption for full observance. he thus attempts to proove that this prediction was fulfilled.
DeleteHowever, at the time of the 2nd Temple, the Pharisees had just taken over from the true custodians of the Torah, namely the Kohanim. So exile/destruction could only be punishment for Phariseeic orthodoxy, which is what the yeshivas represent. On the other hand, the return and establishment of the State of israel was a largely secular movement, which was in fact opposed by a large part of the Orthodox world, and only accepted by a small Religious Zionist movement (and mainstream centrist Jews around the world). So again, Orthodoxy seems to be disproven by this prediction, and hence also the oral Law.
Do you really think the Tenach listed every prophet and prophecy they made ? Then I suggest you read the tenach more carefully and study Talmud which will dispel your notion that I am inventing ghosts. You really do not know what you are talking about.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot sure you are getting my drift. Here it is again in a nutshell - I quote from my 4th prophecy blog post: There is no evidence the alleged extremely high prophecy success rate requires the invocation of supernatural. The high prophecy rate could be the result of a biased recording and canonization processes. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THIS. We KNOW THERE WAS CANONIZATION PROCESS. IF THE THEIST WANTS TO USE PROOF FROM PROPHECY THE BURDEN IS ON THE THEIST TO SHOW THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
Delete"Going back to the Gottliebian Kuzari 'principle', a large part of his argument is that the Torah predicts exile for abandoment of the Torah, and redemption for full observance. he thus attempts to proove that this prediction was fulfilled." AFAIK THAT is not part of RG's Kuzari principle or Kuzari argument. I think it is a separate argument he makes that the Roman Invasion was predicted in the Torah (i.e for example Deut). The Book Bondage of the Mind refutes such a notion, plus many (if not most, including JPS) scholars believe those passages in Deut refer to the times of Babylon. I also argue the Torah is making conditions - do this then good, do that then bad. Almost a carbon copy of ANE treaties etc; SEE http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_12.html
DeleteMany more prophets were active in ancient Israel and Judah than those whose work is
Deleterepresented in the prophetic books of the Bible' SOURCE Page 457-458 JPS. {But I already knew this from reading Tenach and Talmud. Apparently you have not done your homework, but make false accusations that I have invented ghosts.}
Gottlieb uses this as his overall argument to prove the Torah, and kuzari is part of it. I've been to his lectures.
DeleteIf these prophets who were active had made predictions, where are they? Do you or your friends have records of what their predictions were? If yes, please publish them. If not, they are ghost prophecies.
DeleteThere is not clear info on when canonization took place and by what method. Neusner points out it was the Pharisees, and that anything lost is gone and not to be found (outside of the Apocrypha). But if the Pharisees did this, their rationale would likely have been anti sadducee, rather than selection of good prophecies. They tried to excise koheleth _ not because he made false predictions, but because his philosophy was anti Pharisees.
DeleteI think I have addressed all your critiques so I will not rehash my comments. Just want to clarify something for you, but if you read my blog carefully I should not have to. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT 'when canonization took place'. It starts way before then - who was keeping records, is the record complete and that is before we get to the canonization process. I also want to repeat, the onus is not on me to prove there was no bias in the recording and cannon. The Theist using prophecy as proof needs to show that bias could not have crept into the recording and especially the cannon process. Otherwise I will just argue the excellent prophecy record is because of bias record keeping.
DeleteIsaiah 45 refers directly to Cyrus himself who will get the rewards like Egypt etc: It is a twisting of Isaiah to claim the prophecy is referring to someone other than Cyrus himself.But suit yourself.
DeleteIt seems you are missing the prophecies which are false, and instead nitpick on Micah ( just because you read about him in the jps)
ReplyDeleteYou are proving my point by not reading what I actually write. Go back an read more slowly. In fact Micah is the only one where I do not cite JPS, LOL. However, MIcah is a good example of failed prophecy and so are the other 3 I gave. here is the link again https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html
DeleteI picked four prophecies that are false and I really can not think of a plausible way out of them for a theist claiming Tenach prophecies are true. Those four (and many argue there are others) leave me skeptical of theists who use prophecy as proof. They demand I supply some false ones and I did.
DeleteMicah prophecy came true. It's kind of ludicrous - you argue it's a false prophecy, and when challenged you distract by saying "it's a warning".
DeleteYou make up your own rule that it must be in his own lifetime.
So even though it was fulfilled later, you still claim its false. So it's not worth debating with you.
"The conquest of Egypt, planned by Cyrus, was the major achievement of Cambyses’ reign"
Deletehttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Cambyses-II
So his plans were fulfilled through his son, yet you still claim this was a dud prophecy. The tenach speaks in these terms, eg the offspring of the patriarchs, kings etc. Even Hezekiah was spared punishment but his offspring would suffer. So it shows an overall unfamiliarity you have with the language and tenor of the Hebrew Tanach.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHas ancient tyre been rebuilt?
DeleteAncient Babylon is now an archaeological site. Saddam Hussein built a palace there but it was bombed by the Americans
"I picked four prophecies that are false and I really can not think of a plausible way out of them "
DeleteThis is based on your assumption that predictions need to come true in the lifetime of the predictor. However this is false / or true depending on how we define prophecy. If the prophecy is from God then his lifetime is longer than the mouthpiece/prophet. If you mean they need to occur in the lifetime of the mouthpiece, again that is false.
The Torah predicts , for example, in Dev 30; 1:
"And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,"
This is clearly beyond the lifetime of Moses. So there is no rule within the Torah that there needs to be immediate fulfillment - unless he is being tested for a prediction to see if he's a real prophet. But I am not aware of any of these type prophecies recorded - perhaps there are a few.
There are , however, some prophecies, which are worded as being in the near future. It is not relevant whether the prophet himself sees it. He coudl die the next day, but the prediction come true a few weeks or years later. That is why ,I think, you are missing the real controversial prophecies and fixating on these petty ones.
Thus, when Isaiah uses the phrase "days are coming" he is talking about the immediate future. It is very unconvincing if the is referring to end of days, i.e. thousands of years later. Thes emessianic prophecies which are told with immediacy are problematic to say the least. the other problematic one is Nathan's first prophecy to David, promising him that his throne wil be secure forever, and that he will not be exiled etc.
2 Sam 7
"15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[b]; your throne will be established forever.’”"
Now what does that forever mean? For all of Solomon's lifetime? Or was this promise later rescinded because of David's act with Bathsheba?
If so it makes other problems, i.e. even good prophecies can be rescinded (and hence are false).
If it is a true prophecy, it needs to be adhered to. I think you are chasing your tail with Micah, and cyrus, these are just arguments you picked up elsewhere.
"This is based on your assumption that predictions need to come true in the lifetime of the predictor." The context of Tenach I cite are fairly clear is was for current generation. However, some Tenach prophecy is not for the generation of the prophet. It is clear from the language of Tenach. So there is no absolute rule this way or that.
DeleteIt is pretty clear Ezekiel 26 is a failed prophecy as I explain and support in my blog post https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html
DeleteI need to respond to "Micah prophecy came true. It's kind of ludicrous - you argue it's a false prophecy, and when challenged you distract by saying "it's a warning".
DeleteYou make up your own rule that it must be in his own lifetime.
So even though it was fulfilled later, you still claim its false. So it's not worth debating with you."
I really need to address this. First I have no desire to debate with you (or anybody else). Second my blog and my comments are providing various different responses to various different arguments etc:. Lets take prophecy. For Theists who claim prophecy ABC is conditional I provide one sort of response. For Theist claiming prophecy ABC was not conditional I provide another sort of response. BTW - It seems pretty clear for some tenach 'prophecies' they were conditional; for others a theist may argue they are not conditional. Take the the Micah example - I can see a theist arguing it was not conditional; but if so then it failed unless you kvetch it REALLY meant about a century later which is obviously not the context. Jeremiah 26:17 then seems to turn Micah into a sort conditional situation in that reforms took place and the Lord revoked Micah's prophecy. (I do not think I have continued to argue MICAH was conditional because after double checking Micah I do not think I could convince a theist it was conditional.) BTW Because of our conversation I did clarify but not really change my failed prophecy post or any others. I hope the next reader will better understand it. Shalom
I am no expert on Tyre - from what little I do know - parts of ancient tyre are a protected site; however large parts of all of Tyre (including the Island) are occupied. The Tyre prophecy failed on at least one count (was not Nebuchadnezzar OR your kvetch HIS SEED), and arguably a second count that Tyre is still around and populated. Get over it.
DeleteTyre - I didn't kvetch Tyre, because in one form or other, it is rebuilt.
DeleteCyrus isn't a kvetch - his plans came true through his son. If I plan to build a clothing Empire, and send my son to Harvard, and he turns my outlet into a clothing Empire, then my aspirations have come true, through my son (who's also a doctor).
DeleteDepends. I'm not using the prophets as proof of Torah or God. I'm trying to analyze them, and compare to others such as Nostradamus, for example. Nostradamus is vague and has enough wiggle room to be applied to an event after it takes place. Hebrew prophecies are more specific.
DeleteThere are also more rules in the Torah as well, eg how teshuva might defer an evil outcome, but sometimes it can't. Look at the flood, and Sodom& Gomorrah. Sodom has some wiggle room if 10 just people are found. In Jeremiah that's also pervasive. So perhaps it's not always stated . Micah is a short book, so it might not contain explicit rules.
If an academic scholar claims that the books were selected , he needs to provide evidence. Maybe when you do counter-kiruv you can say you don't need evidence. But in academic debate the authors can be asked to back up their claims.
"If an academic scholar claims that the books were selected , he needs to provide evidence." It is well known not all prophets and their prophecies were recorded. I can cite you Tenach, Talmud and also I gave you JPS. It is also known there was a canon process which means there was a selection process. It is also fairly established in the academic literature that the books named after a prophet have portions that are written after the death of the prophet. I think I am on solid ground here. In adduition, it is sufficient to counter any proof from prophecy.
Delete"Cyrus isn't a kvetch". Yes it because the Tenach is directly speaking to him, that HE himself will be the beneficiary that he is the anointed multiple multiple times he is the one. What, the Lord did not know it would really be his son ? Come on. The Tennach should write the prophecy as Cyrus's seed being the beneficiary. I am not buying this kveth; sorry.
DeleteI've been reading some of this type of literature. None of it is proven. There are various opinions, what was once fashionable, is now replaced by a newer theory etc. A list of verses is alleged to have been altered by a redactor, etc.
DeleteCyrus is indeed a kvetch and a straw man. Upon reading ch. 43 of Isaiah, it's not referring to Cyrus at all. This is an invention of jps. The chapter is adressing Israel.
DeleteAnd it's not a prophecy it's in the past tense
נָתַתִּי כָפְרְךָ מִצְרַיִם
Israel was given the spoils of Egypt when they left - it's already mentioned in the Torah. They took precious metals of Egypt. Hence discussion of Kambiz/ Cyrus is a red herring and a straw man.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Ben Mikra I quoted JPS on Is. 43; now it could have been a typo on JPS part, but not sure and I doubt it. They seem to be reading all the pasukim in chapt 43 in context and in relation to each other and maybe looking at the context of Chapt 43 and several chapters perhaps, including chapt 45. They have a long intro to Isaiah and a pasuk by pasuk analysis. Also, some scholars (not just JPS) do think the prophecy was Cyrus to take Egypt includes Capt 43. Your point is moot since Chapt Is. 45 does mention Egypt in relation to Cyrus. I am deferring to JPS expertise that the Isaiah prophecy was Egypt to be given to Cyrus. Therefore I would consider that a failed prophecy. It is certainly not a red herring or straw man, unless you do not know what those fallacies really are.
DeleteSome Theists cant abide by their prophets having failed prophecies. They will ignore parts of the prophecy, interpret the prophecy out of context and invent all sorts of rationalizations. They then claim there are no false prophecies. I think it is intellectually dishonest. But even if there are allegedly no false prophecies, the argument from prophecy is flawed for the reasons I outline in my blog posts.
DeleteLofl, what a joke.
DeleteYou are touting a reform jps position,which you have blind faith in. Ch 43 in total, is addressing Israel, not Cyrus. You remind me of the orthodox rabbis _ except that your oral law was also not given on Sinai, but you adhere to sergeant Pepper's 13 principles of obfuscation. And to question it is heresy, you simply shout "theist". Lol, what a joke.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere are a few options but chapter 43 does not mention Cyrus. Chapter 45 mentions choresh. So here is the complicated part if it was written contemporaneously then it could be a prophet about Cyrus the Great or it could be a prophecy about a later messianic figure called Coresh.
DeleteHowever may not have been written contemporaneously that added at the time of Cyrus to honour him in which case there's no discussion it's not a prophecy at all.
I don't see any rational way of determining when this was written. one problem for using prophecy as proof is that there is no prophecy now which can be tested why have the prophets disappeared? If there were supposedly profits during the Babylonian exile then why is this Exile any different? Shouldn't there be prophets right now?
Some of the Rabbinical comentators say this is referring to Messiah, not Cyrus, whereas a few of them say it is the historical Cyrus. I don't see JPS commenting much on Sefaria.
DeleteIt doesnt make sense for it to be Cyrus, since v17 says
"17 O Israel, that art saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. " which ain't happened.
you could claim it is emended later (and is still wrong) which makes it look stupid; or that it is not a perfect prophecy and applies to Cyrus.
The other way of reading it is that it is a genuine contemporaneous prophecy, which has not yet occurred.
Why should anyone accept your reading as authorative?
It is not my reading at all, nor do I have blind faith in anybody. JPS and other scholars agree on this -it was the historical Cyrus - the one who helped the Jews and he himself was going to get rewards for that. Ibn Ezra for example also has Is 45:14 refers to Cyrus getting Egypt. NOW if you have other traditional Jewish sources claiming it is not Cyrus then you can argue there was no false prophecy as my blog wrote. This is the problem with using prophecy as proof - they are not specific enough and even when it seems they are specific, people will argue it means something else JUST LIKE YOU HAVE doen several times already. I do not want to clog up secondson post on Kuzari with more of our discussion about prophecy. So this will be my last comment to you. Nice chatting and Shalom.
DeleteMicah's prophecy is simply a straw man you are using.
ReplyDeleteThe prophets were not writing books to be used in later seminars at Aish and OPhr Sameach as proofs for the torah. This method is reading backwards something into the texts which were giving a different message. So you are not impressed by Micah, yet his prophesy was delayed. These are warnings, with consquences. Jeremiah is full of these warnings, and eventually luck runs out - there is no more chance for redemption.
Now some of your arguments I do agree with , eg part 1 .
I would expand on Falsifiability in a more scientific sense.
Also, the success of the prophet might mreely be his knack of understanding historical patterns - history repeats itself. So to say you will be conquered by a foreign enemy, crushed, disperesed etc may be a pretty normal thing in the middle east. even today , we see this in Iraq , Syria etc. Oh, but then these things were alos prophesied by Isaiah about Damascus, Bavel etc.
If I predict something about Iran, or israel in the next 50 years, is it prophecy? there will be a war, and the Persians will suffer, and be brought down by a strong wind, and from above their skies. etc
wanna bet about it?
I explained to you previously why it is not a straw man, do you know what the fallacy even refers to ? But overall your points in this comment of yours are basically on target. On this we agree.
DeleteAlso, I started this thread pointing to Dr gottlieb (he is not a professor, since he no longer teaches at university) who denies that the neviim made predictions. The reason he does this is to avoid scrutiny of the prophets, who are not 100% accurate.
DeleteThis is a very clear and explicit prophecy by Isaiah (58:13-14)
Delete"13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD, and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."
Unfortuantely it is also false - keeping shabbat and not discussing busines does not attain wealth or hertigage or success for the individual. Many peiopel discuss business on shabbat and are successful, whereas otehrs who refrain may be destitute , not even solvent enough to get marry let alone ride on high or have many offspring.
@Ben MIkra - Perhaps Apologetic response - Isaiah 58 is about the nation not specific individuals. My blog provides fairly specific prophecies that failed. Nevertheless, even if religious argue THERE ARE NO FAILED PROPHECIES my blog explains this could have been result of the editing and recording process so the proof would fail.
DeleteThis collective reward idea is a fallacy, since there is always a get out clause - that guy in Timbaktu was not shomer shabbat, so everyone else must go through a holocaust.
DeleteEasy to make such fake predictions. Sorry, I am being the skeptic today
@Ben Mikra "Easy to make such fake predictions.." Agreed and I have made the same point in my blog posts. Isaiah 58 is about the nation not specific individuals. That if the whole nation observes Shabbas. Like you say it becomes meaningless. Also how do you test for it etc: etc: see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_12.html DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A SKEPTIC, I encourage it.
DeleteThe prophecy starts by addressing fasting. Some people complained. Did a whole nation have access to Isaiah and complain or just the vocal group? His answer in the case of shabbat - Im Tashiv is voiced to the individual.
DeleteFor those who believe in olam haba, it might be very disappointing if they are told it was a group reward only, and some people were reform, hence no olam haba.
@Ben Mikra - Isaiah is responding to what appears WIDESPREAD issues and is addressing the nation as a whole. An Apologetic response could be that that it is a stretch to argue it is a prophecy for an individual. I will check the hebrew grammar, but even so it could be just rhetoric style. Isaiah was probably encouraging the nation to keep the Sabbath.
DeleteThat is the nature of much literature, whether prophetic or not. Even legal texts are argued over. Cheers
ReplyDeleteCheck out http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-24-uyghurs.html
ReplyDeleteSorry this is a bit late - check out https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-25-armenian.html for two failed NETs.
ReplyDelete