The Kuzari Proof – 3 Million Witnesses Can Be Wrong


The Kuzari Proof is a famous proof of the validity of Judaism and is commonly used in outreach programs to convince estranged Jews to return to the fold of observance. (1) It was developed originally by the 11th century poet Yehuda Halevi as a response to the loss of Judaism’s monopoly on monotheism. It was designed specifically to prove that the Jews had a unique theological gift: the direct and public revelation of God to all the ancient Israelites at Mt. Sinai. (2) In recent years, the ‘proof’ has been offered as a proof of many things. Most commonly it attempts to prove: the existence of God, His revelation to the ancient Israelites at Sinai, His authorship of the Torah, and the resulting inerrancy of the Torah. My purpose is not to argue for or against the veracity of any of the above claims, but instead to show why the Kuzari proof is not a proof of any of them. Part of the search for truth entails the culling out of implausible options. It is my hope that the de-legitimization of the Kuzari proof will lead the observant and the secular alike to come closer to the truth.

The Kuzari ‘proof’ has been proffered in several forms and incarnations but the gist is as follows:
1) 3 million Jews witnessed the revelation of God at Sinai. (3)
2) Starting with the witnessing generation, one generation has told the story to the next, leading us, in the current generation, to be inductive witnesses to this event.
3) It is impossible to fake a large public event and its subsequent intergenerational transmission (with inferred acceptance) as described in steps 1 and 2, thus the original event must have happened.
It would seem to be common sense that events with many witnesses cannot be faked. However, history has taught us that many who have invoked ‘common sense’ have been frustrated by how rare indeed a sense it is. Needless to say, I find many problems with this ‘proof’. I will take each in sequential order.

First, I address the ‘3 million Jews witnessed the revelation’ claim. In logical discourse, one cannot assume what one is trying to prove. You cannot assume that the Torah is inerrant in order to prove that it is inerrant. The 3 million figure (or 600,000 adult males to be more precise) comes from the Torah. (4) One cannot use this figure then, to prove that there were 3 million witnesses to an event which then makes the Torah inerrant. To do so is to construct a tautological proof, or in lay terms… a self-validating statement. The statement “if it rains, it will be raining” is syntactically valid, but is semantically meaningless, in that it is tautological. The proof of the inerrancy of the Torah cannot be made by using statements that require the Torah to be inerrant. In short, we do not know, independent of the Torah claim, that there were 3 million witnesses at Sinai, hence the proof falls apart right there.

Next we look at the ‘witnessed the revelation of God at Sinai’ part of the first statement. As I can recall from my Hebrew school days, the voice of God at Sinai was so powerful it could ‘tear the soul from your body’. I also remember descriptions of smoke and fire similar to the poor Technicolor animations of the DeMille classic depicting the same. (5) Now Joan Rivers has a voice that in my mind can tear the soul out of my body as she as she squawks and screeches about the stars’ fashions at the Oscars. I am in no particular hurry to worship Joan Rivers nor Cecil B. DeMille. What I mean to get across comedically is that special effects capable of being produced cheaply these days by Industrial Light and Magic and the good folks over at Lucasfilm hardly proves God for me. A simple retort might be “but no one believes the fantastic stories and special effects of today to be true”. Tell that to the people who suffered mass panic and hysteria at the radio transmission of Welles’ “The War of The Worlds” in the 1938. (6) In summation, as we build here, for statement 1, we have 3 million unproved witnesses witnessing something they say was fiery, scary and spoke with a loud voice. If one were to tell a Kuzari adherent of UFO sightings, they would likely start to ask questions as to what other explanations could explain this phenomenon: why not here too? (7)

Now we look at statement 2, specifically at the part which says: starting with the witnessing generation, we have an unbroken chain of transmission. The ‘starting with the witnessing generation’ part is key. It says that it is impossible to get a generation (a large group of people) to accept anything as an accurate account of history which was not known to be an accurate account history. Yet when you poke a Kuzari adherent for proof of the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt you quickly get this response: “The Egyptians did not record their defeats.” (8) Well hang on a second here, does not that suggest that the Egyptians published a history and the greater than 3 million Egyptians that read it accepted it as true even though they knew it was untrue? (9) So can you cause multitudes to accept a false history or not? Which is it? The answer cannot be, if we are to have a sensible conversation, yes in the case of the Egyptians and no in the case of the Israelites. It also cannot be the answer that the Egyptians were embarrassed by defeat and thus motivated to accept the faked history because we cannot know if the Israelites also were not embarrassed by some historical event and thus were motivated to accept a revised history of unique divine revelation. Recall, we cannot assume the Torah as an accurate account of history to prove that the Torah is an accurate account of history. Keeping our eye on the ball, it is NOT the issue here whether or not there were slaves in Egypt, nor is it the issue as to what the actual history of the region was. The issue is that you cannot, at once, claim that you both can and cannot cause a large number of people to accept a false history. The Kuzari proof and discussions of the Kuzari proof are fraught with these sorts of asymmetric applications of explanatory logic. You cannot suck and blow from the same explanatory pipe at the same time.

Next we address statement 3, the inerrancy and incorruptibility of generational transmission of this revelation. Note: this statement is really just a summation of points 1 and 2 where the true Kuzari argument rests. Many people have accused the Torah of suffering from ‘broken telephone’ transmission. The orthodox authorities have correctly retorted that they have proof, archaeological no less, that the Torah has shifted perhaps 2 or 3 letters at most during all of its transmission. Parenthetically, for those keeping score and who just noted an asymmetrical application of explanatory logic, a gold star to you. You correctly noted that all of the sudden archaeology IS an acceptable proof that the Torah has not changed through the generations, yet archaeology IS NOT acceptable as proof that there were not Israelites in Egypt.

If the Torah did not significantly change over they centuries, which is a statement I will accept due to archaeological supporting evidence, the question becomes: why would any people accept the Torah as history, as the ancient Israelites seemed to, if its contents (the description of the revelation at Sinai) were not known to be true? In typical rabbinic style, let me answer a question with a question: Why would the multitudes that accepted the Gospels as gospel, accept them unless they knew somehow that Jesus had indeed miraculously fed the multitudes fish and loaves of bread as the gospels describe? (10) “After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ ” (John 6:14) (11) The problem here exists in yet another asymmetrical application of explanatory logic. If you cannot pervert a generational transmission of a miraculous event, then adherents to the Kuzari proof must by definition, accept that Jesus fed the multitudes by miracle. To be clear, I am not saying whether Jesus fed the multitudes or not, nor am I proving or disproving a revelation at Sinai, I am simply saying that the evidence of cultural widespread acceptance of an event as a miracle cannot be the proof of Judaism because it proves antithetical Jewish and Christian miracles at the same time.

In summation we see that the Kuzari proof is a failed proof because of fundamental flaws in logic. The two main fundamental flaws are assuming that which is trying to be proved and asymmetrical uses of explanatory logic at the convenience of the argument. The Kuzari proof is an attempt to prove the divine revelation at Sinai which, in turn, is a cornerstone of Jewish faith. (12) For the orthodox that appear vexed at the decline of Judaism, the message is clear: The rest of us will accept what you have to say when you provide cogent proof. The Kuzari proof is not cogent and the burden of proof is on you.

Further reading:

3 Numbers (1:46) There were 600,000 adult males generally leading us to conclude a total population of 3 million.
4 ibid
9 The number of Egyptians must have been greater than 3 million if the biblical account is true because it would be impossible to subdue and enslave a population of 3 million Israelites with an equal or smaller number of Egyptians.
12 Aish.Com – Rediscovering The Revelation

90 thoughts on “The Kuzari Proof – 3 Million Witnesses Can Be Wrong

  1. The intermarriage rate is over 50%. Your (Orthodox) misuse of ‘logic’ is the cause.

    You say modern belief in a certain history is sufficient evidence of a historical fact. Great, 2 billion people believe that Jesus existed and performed miracles. There is also a crew of millions of children that believe in Santa Claus. Hence he exists too.

    To complain about non compliance with the Torah is synonomous with not believing in the Torah. When you say someone “doesn’t believe in the Constitution (US)” you don’t mean the person doesn’t believe in the actual document, you intend that such a person doesn’t believe in the tenets it proscribes.

    Your standard of proof is completely faulty. History does not record the record of the dissenting voice. Proof of this is found in the Torah itself, spoken by God himself!
    Exodus 32:33 “And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.” God just told you that he’s erasing the record of the dissenting voice.

    What did the dissenters say? We don’t know… God erased them. Sorry my God would never do that. He would include them in the record and answer their complaints. He wouldn’t kill them and he wouldn’t then erase them.

    Given the choice between believing in a crappy God or no God… I pick none.

  2. 1. Millions of children believe in Santa Clause. Yes, but do millions of children believe that they saw Santa Clause? No. He visits when everyone is sleeping, of course. (Also, I was surprised that the best thing you could come up with is a children’s belief system. Are you calling the Sinia history a children story? If so, you do not have logic on your side, altough you do have Einstien. He said, “The Sinia story is a children story.” Oh really?! Is there archeological evidence that suggests that the ancent Israelites did not live into ther teens? If so, why do you assume that the sinai history is comparable to a children’s story?

    2. King Solomon is recorded, according to a literal reading of the Bible as performing certain sins. He also wrote that “He who turns away from theTorah, his prayers are also despised,” and “A mitzvah is a candle and the Torah is light,” and “He who loves Torah quarrels with evildoers,” and “The words of the wise are like well-drive pegs, which all disseminate from one Shepard (Moses)”. How could Solomon, who loved Torah, sin? Does that not prove that he did not believe in the Torah? Not neccesarily. I believe in the Torah, and yet I also sin. Many Sefardinc Jews drive on Shabbos, but they believe in the Torah. So one has nothing to do with the other.

    3. You say there were dissenting voices, who were left unrecorded. An uber-skeptic may claim that the early Jews did not believe that there was a temple in Jerusalem, and did not celebrate Hannuka and Tisha Bav. You may be right, but the burden is on you. Prove to me, please, that many people simply believed that the Sinia miracles were rubbish. The fact that they sinned is not proof, as mentioned above, since I also sin.

  3. I noticed your interesting comment about the intermarriage rate, and it leads to my fifth proof for the Torah.

    Proof Number 5. The Divine Providence for the non-survival of false forms of Judaism

    The survival of the Jewish people has always been one of the most outstanding facts in world history (See the index to Rebecca Goldstein’s “36 Arguments for the Existence of God,” which attempts to refute the most famous arguments for the existence of God; included in that list is the survival of the Jewish people.)
    Here, I would like to focus on the reverse miracle: the non-survival of the false forms of Judaism, those that ignore the oral tradition. Tzaddukim, Essenes, Baitusim, Karaites, Sabbatai Tzvi-followers, Frankists, Ananites, are all extinct, extinct, extinct and, yet again, extinct, or (in the case of the Karaites) inches away from becoming extinct.
    Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionism are all THANKFULLY! intermarrying and already, sociologists predict that they will eventually cease to exist. THE ONLY FORM OF JUDAISM WHICH HAS HAD A SPECIAL DIVINE PROVIDENCE HAS BEEN THE ONE THAT ACCEPTED THE ORAL LAW.
    Look at the Samaritans. According to the Midrash, there were 180,000 (if memory serves) of them during the Second Temple era. Today – despite the fact that they were never exiled and despite the fact that they never suffered persecution – are a tiny, tiny group of people, numbering in the hundreds. Their Cohanim have all died out, forcing them to use a Levite as a high-preist (which contradicts open verses which demand that a descendent of Aaron be used “forever.”) At the same time, the battered, bruised, persecuted ORTHODOX Jews are thriving.

    To me, this seems like some sort of divine providence at hand.

  4. According to Wikipedia, there were actually a million Samaritans in Roman times. Today, 712 (they mostly all converted to Islam).

  5. I may have been a bit extreme in my condemnation of the Reform/Conservative. It just that I have a possibly-irrational hatred for those movements. I once had a Prof., ages ago, who was a brilliant fellow, who was an expert in his field. Once, we began to discuss issues of theology, and he told me that he does believe that the sinai miracles are real, historical events.

    However, he said, he agrees with the conservative approach, that the Rabbinic laws, and some ritual laws, were for their time and place. They no longer must be followed. They no longer are relevant (although he was saying this not based on his own research, but rather by what he was fed by reading the writings, and attending services in, Conservative shuls).

    I did not contradict his sermon, fearing that I may offend his sensibilities. To this day, I regret my temerity. Here, we have a man who is sensible enough to trust our national history, but he is compelled not to believe in our version of Judaism because of the writings of a bunch of fools. Why was I so shy? Why did I not show him that Orthodox Judaism is the only real Judaism?

    Thanks to the conservative and reform movements, this brilliant man lived a mostly-purposeless life. And to know fault of his own. I hold their Rabbis to be MUCH, MUCH WORSE than atheists. Not even ballpark.

  6. To say someone is law-abiding does not necessarily entail 100% law abiding. There is a public prohibition against spitting on the street. Someone who spits on the street isn’t considered in flagrant disregard of the law.

    You therefore claim that the sins of Israel do not entail a disbelief in the miracles of Sinai. Hold on… before the Israelites couldn’t stand the sound of God’s voice, God read them the first of his Ten Commandments… which was????
    “Do not have any other gods before me.”

    The very next second… the Israelites do what??? Construct an idol in flagrant disregard of the very ‘miracle’ they just saw.

    You present an argument that suggests there was a consensus among 3 million people that they saw god at mount sinai. There is no evidence of such a consensus in the Torah itself and certainly no evidence elsewhere.

  7. 1. Only three thousand people worshiped the idol; that’s a tiny percentage.

    2. They were in fear; they were in a desert and Moses did not show up, so they thought that they will die if they have no one to lead them. As I’m sure you know, they didn’t make the idol “the very next second.” Martin, go to the desert for forty days with your family, and let me see you not make an idol. That they waited forty days is a testament to their startling holiness.

    3. They did not think it was a pure idol, since they said to it “you are the god of Israel who took us out of Egypt.” They thought that the golden calf was a manifestation of god.

    4. According to Talmudic literature, God gave them an extreme desire to bow to an idol, in order to teach Israel that even if you fall, you can still repent. As the Talmud says,

  8. Proof Number Six: The Exreme Originaily of Morality Found in the Torah (this is a weak proof, since many people have been original, such as Aristotle. Nevertheless, the originality regarding the centrality of morality should inspire pause)

    No other ancient book cares about the stranger, the widow, or orphans (Exodus 22:20-21). No other book requires that a tenth of the produce should be given to the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12). No other book requires a section of each privately-owned farm should be used solely by the landless poor (Leviticus 19:10). No other books demands that a husband provide financial support to his wife (Exodus 21:11) No other book requires care for animals (Deuteronomy 12:21). No other book forbids castrating animals and birds (Leviticus 22:24). No other book requires that animals have a day of rest (Deuteronomy 5:14). No other book forbids haughtiness (17:17). No other book demands that people have a guardrail around their roofs to prevent injury (Deuteronomy 22:8). No other book forbids cooking a calf in its mother’s milk, a sensitivity to animals’ emotions (Exodus 23:19). No other book prohibits muzzling an animal while working (Deuteronomy 22:4). No other book demands that animals be fed (Exodus 22:30). No other book requires that people return lost objects (Deuteronomy 22:1; Exodus 23:4). No other book demands that wages be paid on time (Leviticus 19:13). No other book demands that children be educated (Deuteronomy 4:19). Not other book prohibits the taking of bribes (Exodus 23:8). No other book requires unburdening a donkey strained by its burden, even the donkey of ones “enemy” (Deuteronomy 5:88; Exodus 23:5). No other book demands us to respect (Leviticus 19:3) and assist (Exodus 20:21) parents. No other book prohibits swearing falsely (Exodus 20:7) or otherwise lying (Leviticus 19:11). No other book prohibits taking revenge (Leviticus 19:18). No other book forbids embarrassing others in public, even for the sake of reprimanding a wrongdoer. (Leviticus 19:17) No other book demands us to respect the elderly (Leviticus 19:32). No other book demands that we respect scholars (Leviticus 19:32). No other book requires us to love even the stranger (19:34). No other book prohibits gossiping (Leviticus 19:16). No other book prohibits snatching eggs or chicks in the presence of its mother (Deuteronomy 22:6). No other book demands us to be good Samaritans, to help those who are in trouble (Leviticus 19:16). No other book prohibits waging wars against specific nations (Deuteronomy 2:5, 9, 19). No other book prohibits hating or despising foreign nations (Deuteronomy 22:8). No other book demands us to emulate God. No other book has such a deep, and yet realistic, understanding of human nature. This is an abbreviated version, of course.

    While it is true that the ancient Israelites were commanded to wage certain wars against evildoers who refused to make peace or emigrate, the texts themselves are very clear that it is with a sense of regret that those actions need to be taken. There was no reveling in the slaughter. For example, King David according to the scripture did commit certain sins (II Samuel 11:27), for which he readily repented (Psalms 51:6). Despite all these sins, God nevertheless would have asked him to build the Temple, but for one “flaw” that David possessed. According to scripture, God forbade him from building the temple because “you spilled a lot of blood for me.” To repeat, because it should inspire pause: God forbade David from building the temple solely because of fulfilling the commandment of waging God’s wars.

  9. 1) ‘Only 3 thousand people worshipped the idol’: Bollocks. 3 thousand didn’t answer Moses’ call to come to his side. The Levites killed them. Then God kills everyone else who was involved. As for this being a minority and/or a minor event: Aaron, the high priest himself was involved. Moses makes all of Israel drink of the smashed idol diffused into water. No minority.
    2) ‘They were in fear’: no comment.
    3) ‘The didn’t think it was a pure idol’: rubbish
    4) ‘According to talmudic literature’: you need to prove the Torah is the word of God before you introduce the talmud.
    5: Proof 6: Torah origin of morality: I’ll address your first example: Respect for widow, orphan and poor:
    Mesopotamian Hammurapi (18th Century BCE, well before Israelites)
    dannum ensam
    ana la babalim
    ekutam almattam

    So that the strong might not oppress
    the weak (and so as)
    To give justice to the orphaned
    (homeless) girl and to the widow.
    The theme is present all over the mid east basin:

    Again, you claim a consensus about Sinai which didn’t and has never existed. You claim the Torah is the origin of morality… not so. You claim the Torah is the origin of the stories therein presented. Not so.

  10. 1. They were all held responsible for the sins of the few, because they did not stop the few from sinning.
    2. I do not need to prove that the Talmud is the word of God before using it to defend against your attack against the Torah. Your attack is that even if there is evidence that there were sinai miracles, there is counter-evidence: the fact that some people made the golden calf (although I don’t think that it can even be considered evidence in the first place). By introducing the Talmud, I am reconciling the contradictory evidences. Why, logically, can I not do that? It’s first-grade logic.
    3. Of course people are moral; so are apes, and even cats. My proof was not that the Jews invented morality. My proof is from the CENTRALITY and, more importantly, THE SPECIFICITY or the morality of the Torah. It’s very easy to vaguely preach that “we must help the poor.” It’s another to specify that “a tenth of the produce must be given to them.” It’s one thing to say that “we must give justice to the homeless girl,” but show me an ancient text which says, repeatedly, that oppressing widows and orphans will invite the wrath of the “Father of Orphans,” Who will kill the oppressor. This centrality is remarkable. This centrality, and this specificity, should raise a flag.

  11. Indeed, if you could be so kind, read Hammurabi’s code and show me one law which imposes a moral REQUIREMENT. Do any say, “do this good thing” or “you must feed the poor”? None do. Rather, all of the laws, like american law, are meant to promote societal stability through PUNISHING wrongdoers (e.g., if you do this wrong thing you will be punished; if you kill a pregnant woman, your daughter will be killed, etc.). That’s not morality, per se (I am not familiar with other ancient codes; I am basing this comment on Hammurabi’s code).

  12. 1) If a small minority sinned, why did Moses shatter the first set of commandments? Temper tantrum? No, it was no minority, nor was it a minor transgression. The first witnesses of God at Sinai broke the very first law they witnessed being delivered. The effectively flipped the bird at God. Now 3000 years later you presnt this as evidence as to why I and others should follow such a religion?

    2) You can’t introduce the Talmud as evidence of God and his opinions if you haven’t established that the Torah was the word of God. You could if the Torah explicitly mentioned “I give the Torah and the Talmud here today in front of you all…”

    3) Protection of the widow, the orphan and the poor are central themes to early religions and specific measures are in place to implement these themes.
    There are too many counter examples to list. For a full list please see the papers mentioned in this blog post:
    For a taste:
    From the Instructions of Amenemope (ca 1000 BCE) “A maxim declares that the oppressed must not be robbed and that no harshness be inflicted on the disabled” (F.C. Fensham: Widow, Orphan and the Poor)

    To review
    – 3 million people witnessed God at Sinai and all agreed upon what they saw: no and no
    – Torah is the first teller of most of its myths: no
    – Torah is the first presenter of moral ideas: no

  13. 1. Your claim is that their sins are proof that they did not see God on sinai. Yet, the prophets never scream at the population for not believeing. THE ONLY PERSON THE TORAH EVER ACCUSES OF NOT BELIEVEING IS MOSES AND AARON. If you were right, then the prophets should have accused them for not believing.

    2. The sins of the few are a terrible thing. The sin of the 3,000 is a terrible thing. Therefore, Moses broke the tablets.

    3. I very much can introduce the Talmud. You claim, without a shred of evidence, that bowing to the golden calf is evidence that they did not see miracles (even though the text is clear that they perceived the calf a a manisfestation of G-d, as shown by the fact that Aaron said, “a celebration for HASHEM [YHVH], tomorrow.”) Let’s say you are right. Let’s say that 3,000 bowed to a golden calf who “took them out of Egypt” is evidence that they did not see miracles. At the same time, the evidence I presented, the national, commemorated event is also evidence. Indeed, the only source for the golden calf story is the same Torah which states that they subsequently saw 14,600 days of miracles. When we have contradicting evidence – and we don’t, as even a child can see – then we have a right and a requirement, based on the rules of logic, to try to harmonize the conflicting evidence. The Talmud provides that harmonization, by stating that G-d gave them a supernatural attraction to idolatry. Now, you prefer not to harmonize the conflicting evidence, and I’m not sure why. (Again, I don’t see any conflict in the evidence AT ALL. But even if there was, it surprises me how you follow one side of the evidence without seeking some sort of harmonization.)

    4. As I said before, morality is not a new thing. However, show me, please, CENTRALITY AND SPECIFICTY AND PROACTIVE DUTIES imposed by other legal systems. Until then, you haven’t showed me much.

  14. I was thinking about your position a bit more, and the more I do, the more I scratch my head. The Torah claims, Jewish national history claims, that millions of people survived on manna for 14,600 days. You claim, however, that this MUST be false, because some Jews, at the start of the forty years, bowed down to the golden calf.

    But if you don’t believe the Torah, then you have no way of knowing that there was a golden calf in the first place. Make up your mind: Do you believe the sinai history, that the Jews, millions of them, ate manna for forty years, or do you not. If you don’t, then how can you invoke a golden calf story? If you do believe that millions of Jews ate manna for forty years, then of WHAT RELEVANCE IS IT THAT SOME JEWS BOWED TO A GOLDEN CALF?

  15. Furthermore, you position is based on utter guesswork. You guess, and expect us to accept, that if people bowed to a golden calf they surely could not have seen miracles, despite the fact that they were in a desert, where they could have died suddenly, since Moses had apparently died. Based on your approach, you expect us to ignore even infallible evidence for miracles.

    How, however, did you arrive at your approach? Did you ever meet people who were in a desert? Did you ever meet people who saw a miracle? No, you are taking a wild guess that people who saw miracles would not bow to a golden calf, and that all evidence to the contrary should be ignored. I’m sorry, but you have to substantiate your guesswork.

  16. Ironically, it’s a lack of secular knowledge that’s at fault here: specifically logic. Here we have an example of an internal inconsistency.

    If you say that the moon is made of blue cheese and then later go on to say that moon rocks smell like flowers, I needn’t believe that the moon is made of blue cheese to point out that your statements are internally inconsistent.

    (If the moon is made of blue cheese, then moon rocks should smell strongly of blue cheese and not of flowers.)

    If you say that God appeared on Mount Sinai and that 3 million people witnessed it and all accepted it… and then the Torah goes on to say that there where numerous revolts and that Israel was a “stiffnecked people” who wouldn’t accept the yoke of observance of God’s kingdon — this suggests that there wasn’t a consensus about what was seen and demonstrates that the Mount Sinai event was unconvincing in the first generation to conjure faith and adherents.

    You suggest that we, some 3000 years after this proported event, should accept it as an impetus to believe and follow in God, yet the very first generation which witnessed it firsthand had numerous revolts and doubts. Your statements are internally inconsistent.

    In logic, if your assumptions lead to false conclusions, the assumptions are proven false. So assuming that the Mount Sinai event did infact occur, we arrive at an erroneous state whereby all the Israelites are supposed to have believed and accepted God on Mount Sinai and yet, they revolted over and over again against that same God. (This is a logical contradiction: 1) all Israelites believed in God and 2) all Israelites did NOT believe in God.) Hence, the assumption that God convincingly and conclusively made himself evident on Mount Sinai to a consensus of 3 million Israelites is false.

  17. 1. Just to refer to your earlier point that the ethics of the Torah is not remarkable, here is a quote from an atheist bible-critic, Bart Ehrman: “In some ways, Judaism was distinctive. All other religions in the empire were polyteistic–acknowledging and worshiping many gods of al sorts and functions . . . Judaism, on the other hand, was monotheisic; Jews insisted on worshiping only the one God of their ancestors . . . [Furthermore], and for modern people intimatly familiar with any other major contemporary Western religions it may be hard to imagine, but books played virtualy no role in th polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world. . .There were no doctrines to be learned, as explaned in books, AND ALMOST NO ETHICAL PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED AS LAID OUT IN THOSE BOOKS. This is not to say that adherents of hte various polytheistic religions had no beliefs about ther gods or that they had no ethics, but beliefs and ETHICS – STRANGE AS THS SOUNDS TO MODERN EARS – PLAYED ALMOST NO ROLE IN RELIGION…Judaism was unique in hat it stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained tat these had ben recorded in sacred books…”

    2. All I a saying is that if we have an internal inconsistency, and we have strong evidence for both positions (we don’t, but I am saying even if we would have evidence that they did not believe), we are logicaly compelled to search for a method of answering the contradition. You are against answering the contradiction of evidence, and you haven’t explained why.

    3. You said: “The Torah goes on to say that there where numerous revolts and that Israel was a “stiffnecked people” who wouldn’t accept the yoke of observance of God’s kingdon — this suggests that there wasn’t a consensus about what was seen and demonstrates that the Mount Sinai event was unconvincing in the first generation to conjure faith and adherents.”
    Why does this suggest that there wasn’t a consensus? Have you studied other people who have seen miracles from which you can make inferences about how people who saw miracles would react? In fact, you seem so sure that even when we have infallible evidence for miracles, you still retain your conviction that you are privy to the way people who saw miraces would react. Yet, you haven’t met a single person who has seen miracles. Sound kinda like guesswork.

    4. You haven’t responded to my textual proofs that they did not mean the golden calf to disobey God. In fact, the verses imply that they wanted to WORSHIP God through the golden calf.

    5. The fact that the prophets are not shy about criticizing the Jews and yet, NEVER ONCE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE, are they accused of not believing shows that your assumption, that sinning implies disbelief, is not rooted in reality.

  18. 1. Where I find one person who knows nothing of history, I can also expect to find a second, even one who has written a book. Let’s address this biggest misconception… the Jews invented monotheism. No. Akhenaten of Egypt abandoned polytheism and instituted monotheim in the 14th century BCE. There are other precursors to monotheism besides the Jews.

    2. I assume here you mean… why won’t I accept the talmud. The answer is because it’s not mentioned in the Torah.

    3. I’ve studied the ‘cargo cults’ where the indigineous people of Papua New Guinea worshipped the arrival of cargo and developed an entire religion and set of practices around it. So cargo planes inspires a whole new religion, yet God reveals himself on Mount Sinai and … bupkes, except for revolts.

    4. I don’t accept your line of argument. Before Moses intercedes, God was ready to destroy the entire nation outright and start over. I therefore reject your haphazard idea that it was a minor event and/or a minor transgression.

    5. Take the most popular prophet Isaiah. Read the very introduction:
    Isaiah 1:3 “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider.”

  19. 1. I will some up my points regarding your golden calf theory (it’s basically a repeat of my earlier comments. I think your theory is based on four errors, three of them being errors in logic and one being an error in scholarship. First, your error in scholarship: The verses never claim that they were revolting against god (the fact that God wanted to destroy the entire nation is not a proof, since god may have a strickter standard. For example, in Joshua we find that one man’s sin – Achan – many thousands died). Second, your error in logic. You claim that it is improbable that people who saw miracles would revolt against god. Your error is that your assuming that people who saw miracles would not revolt. Your assumption is not based on real facts, or real people who saw miracles. Third, another error in logic. You claim that it is IMPROBABLE that people who saw miracles would bow to a calf. I agree. But if we have strong evidence that an improbable event happened – here, national commemorated history – we accept the evidence despite it’s improbability. Four, alternatively, your argue that it is isn’t merely improbable that people who saw miracles would bow to a calf but it is actually IMPOSSIBLE that people who saw miracles would bow to a calf. The problem with your “impossibility” claim is that you must show that it is impossible that God gave them an irrational desire for idolatry. Since you are claiming that something is impossible, you really must rule out every single possibility.

    2. The fact that the prophets reprimand that Jews is one of the strongest proofs for, not against, judaism. We weren’t patting ourselves on our backs. Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Joshua and all the greatest heroes of Judaism are constantly reprimanded.

    3. The cargo people didn’t invent a false history. Instead, they interpreted natural events in a mythological fashion. Are you claiming that the events recorded in the Torah, the splitting of the sea, the feeding of millions through manna, the pillar of fire, miraim’s well, korach’s death, Moses’ shining fact etc. etc. were all natural events?

  20. I never suggested that the Jews invented monotheism (although I did quote a scholar who did seems to imply that…). I read up a bit about Akhenaten, and I was fascinated by his campaign for monotheism. Sadly, the Egyptians employed “extreme efforts to excise his existence fom all records…these efforts to conceal him from history were so successful that it required a triumph of archaeology to rediscover his existence.” It is possible that the Jews influenced him in his monotheism, although that it just a guess on my part. It is further possible that he wasn’t a strict monotheist since “absolute monotheism was slightly compromised, however, because in keeping with the traditioal Egyptian veiw that Pharaoh was a god…Akhenated styled himself as…[one] who was to be prayed to as the suorce of blessing or people after death.” Finally, to be sure, his religion was “a happy religion without an ethical code.” This substantiates my earlier point, that the Jews ethical beliefs are remarkable.

  21. OK. I guess we have reached a point in the debate to close on. We have looked at the various proofs for Judaism (I have a couple of more proofs, but I have presented what I have found to be the strongest proofs for Judaism).

    1. The Kuzari proof: A) a national (100% of millions of people), B) heavily commemorated (with commandments such as Passover, phylacteries, mezuzah, Shmeeta, Yovel, Joshua’s Stones on which he supposedly wrote the Torah), the Torah written by Moses, tzitis and many other commemorations, C) burdensome, D) Long Term (14,600 days) history E) believed by a cultured, literate, genealogical, and moral society. We have suggested that since this form of evidence has never shown itself to be fallible, we must surrender to the weight of the evidence and accept the sinai events as being a true history.

    2. The Purim Proof: A national, commemorated history of the Purim miracles allows us to conclude that the Purim miracle took place. While it is not surely a miracle, in the context of the remarkable Jewish survival which was predicted by over a hundred verses of the Bible, allows us to suspect that a Divine Actor was behind that Purim salvation.

    3. The Exile Proof: The Torah, in numerous verses (and the books of the prophets, namely, Joshua, Jeremiah, and Isaiah) predict that the nation of Israel will be exiled to foreign lands. (And your defense that the Torah was written after the first exile is hard to swallow, since the Samaritans share the same Torah text that we do). This exile proof, once again, should at least inspire an atheist to become an agnostic regarding the Divine Origin of the Torah.

    4. The fact that the Torah, which on numerous occasions refers to an afterlife, never promises an afterlife as a reward for observance. If the Torah was a lie, or based on a lie, we would have had more of a focus on the afterlife.

    5. The fact that fake forms of Judaism have all gone, or are about to go, exinct is remarkable.

    6. The remarkable focus on morality is an original concept and should allow one to suspect that a Divine Author wrote the Torah (as I said before, this proof is quite weak).

    Martin, you are smarter than me. Indeed, you have put up an agressive response to my proofs. If I have failed to convince you – and it appears that I have failed – do not blame the proof, blame it on the fact that I am neither a Talmid Chacham, nor have I ever been trained in Kiruv. I am sorry that I haven’t put enough effort, enough effort capable of convincing you of what I find to be most obvious.

    Thank you for this wonderful debate. The first question, when we come upstairs (according to some chassidic interpretations) is “Have you discussed faith?” To this question, you will be able to answer, “Yes, I have discussed faith.” May your search for the truth lead you to the truth, and may we see “Our brothers the whole house of Israel, who are in distress and captivity​, who wander over sea and over land — may God have mercy on them, and bring them from distress to comfort, from darkness to light, from slavery to redemptio​n, now, swiftly, and soon.”

  22. Ok, if you’d like to regroup, collect your thoughts etc… that’s fine.

    I still hadn’t really gotten into what I actually thought happened vis-a-vis the exodus. I was still observing the ‘way’ you argue so that I could come up with examples that would reach you.

    This article:
    tells the story nicely.

    You’ll be frustrated in that it doesn’t quote sources etc etc.

    If you want sources, try:

    It’s not an easy read, sorry.

    An easier read, yet less in depth is T. W. Doane

    Best of luck to you in your search for the truth…MCW

  23. The truth is that I think you deserve someone who is a better debater than me, and someone who is really knowledgable enough to respond to your claims. I have been doing the best I can – and, yes, I have voraciously AND CRITICALLY read many books on biblical archeology and biblical criticism (and I have found many books both fields to be so, so heavily based on guesswork that it boggles the mind that they even get published). Still, I think someone who is an expert in the above-mentioned fields would do a better job than me. I am just a curious businessman. In the mean time, all the best, my friend.

  24. The whole Kuzari principal is based on the assumption that an individual could not have came later in history, and “reminded” people about the whole Sinai and 10 plagues story. Certainly people would have asked why their parents have no knowledge of this! This however, is only an assumption, which I will prove to be wrong. The Mormons believe the third book of Nephi to be true, I will quote some here, but feel free to check it yourself. 3 Nephi chap. 9

    1And it came to pass that there was a avoice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:

    2Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall arepent; for the devil blaugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

    3Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I aburned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

    4And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be asunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

    5And behold, that great city aMoronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

    3 Nephi chap 10

    1And now behold, it came to pass that all the people of the land did ahear these sayings, and did witness of it. And after these sayings there was silence in the land for the space of many hours;

    2For so great was the astonishment of the people that they did cease lamenting and howling for the loss of their kindred which had been slain; therefore there was silence in all the land for the space of many hours.

    3And it came to pass that there came a voice again unto the people, and all the people did hear, and did witness of it, saying:

    4O ye people of these agreat cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I bgathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have cnourished you.

    3 Nephi chap. 11

    8And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they asaw a Man bdescending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

    9And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

    10Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

    11And behold, I am the alight and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter bcup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in ctaking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the dwill of the Father in all things from the beginning.

    12And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude afell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been bprophesied among them that Christ should cshow himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.

    The Kuzari principal would tell me, that these stories must be true, because the people would not accept an individual’s story about their ancestor’s, if their parents did not know of it! But not only could they only ask their ancestors, they could have asked anyone in the world. Now I certainly don’t believe the Mormons books, but when you base a theory, on the extent of people’s tendency to believe to an absurd extent, you are producing a very weak theory indeed. There is one other problem with the Kuzari Argument: for it to be valid, there must be an unbroken chain of tradition starting from the population witnessing the miracles described in the Torah. However, some text in the Old Testament suggests otherwise. According to the book of Judges, And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being an hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnathheres, in the mount of Ephraim, on the north side of the hill Gaash. And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers:and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim: And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. (Judges 2:8-12)

    Furthermore, in 2 Kings “the book of the law” is discovered, serving as a reminder of previously forgotten traditions.

    And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD … And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for 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 have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:8-13)

    These excerpts seem to raise doubt upon any claim that the oral tradition of the miracles in the Torah were maintained continuously by more than a minority of the population. Therefore, it would seem that the population inevitably accepted a history presented to them (whether true or false) by a small group of people. If taken at face value, this on it’s own is enough to invalidate the whole argument.

  25. Many thanks for your comments. Having experienced numerous discussions along these lines, be prepared for this question:
    “The book of Nephi says ‘All the people’ but does not say how many people.”
    Around the time you start gritting your teeth, your ‘opponent’ will quote the twice repeated census numbers of 600,000 military aged men in the Old Testament.
    So you have two choices at this moment… demonstrate that the Book of Nephi refers to a significantly large group of witnesses, or show that 600,000 military age males in the Biblical ages is historically implausible.

  26. “All the people OF THE LAND” would probably mean more than three or four, I don’t think anyone would dispute that. I was very happy to see this post for this point I think is an easy-argued baloon-puncher against the kiruvniks.

    Thanks a lot for your page! I myself, although being gifted and raised in a healthy invironment, was hijacked by ultra-orthodox missionaries during my early twenties when I was young and impressionable, looking for things, and at that in a foreign land. It took me many years to get out, and my life managed to become significantly messier.. 😉 These people prey on young, inexperienced “searchers”, and utilize a manipulative, power-based (being confronted with 100% convinced people can be convincing itself) discourse to achieve their goals and it’s important to have simple, quickly-argued points to make to be able to counter this soul-hunting. Again, irrational faith is fine, as long as you know it’s irrational faith and draw appropriate conclusions from that. Brain-washing, however, is not fine, and having experienced it I do my best, when opportunity rises, to help others not fall into that pit…

  27. As you argue more and more with them, it’s amazing how thinly kiruv experts are willing to slice the semantic cucumber. “All of the people of the land” — “well that’s not for sure that many people…”

    The Torah claims that there were 600,000 adult males at Kadesh Barnea. This number in turn is hugely problematic and moreover, unlikely…

  28. Zevy: One flaw with your Nephi argument, as Martin pointed out, is that it refuses to mention numbers. But there is a more basic problem. Mormons don’t believe that they descend from the Nephi. The Nephi were a group that went extinct. The Kuzari argument is based on national history; Nephi is based on an event that the early devotees to Mormonism had no way of confirming or denying. There is nothing inherently irrational about a Mormon TRUSTING Joseph Smith regarding his account of what happened to an extinct nation. There IS something irrational about believing a false national history.
    Another point you mentioned was the fact that the tradition was broken. First, you mention the verses in Judges. It does not state that the tradition was broken; it merely implies that there weren’t any more first-hand witnesses who “knew” of the events. Indeed, a few chapters later, the verses quote townspeople who refer to the miraculous Exodus “that our parent related to us.” Furthermore, the verses don’t mean to imply that all the first-hand witnesses died, since Pinchas is mentioned at the end of the book.
    Regarding the finding of the Torah scroll, how does it imply that they forgot about the miraculous history? At most, it implies that the ruling class had forgotton about the WRITTEN TORAH.

  29. #28: The book of Nephi seems to say there was a revelation to all of earth, so surely the mormons should have been aware of this, having been told about this from their parents who were also citizens of earth, or by their friends parents…. 😉

  30. Would you happen to have chapter and verse for this “revelation to all of the earth”?

  31. Well, the guy above (zevy) said Nephi 3, chapter 9, and there it is, first verse… Here’s a link:

    Now, it says: “And it came to pass that there was a avoice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land…”, and the mind trained in Talmud would immediately claim that the part of the sentence that says “upon all the face of this land” cancels the previous “all the inhabitants of the earth”, defining it’s meaning, perhaps clarifying that “earth” means the “earth” in “this land”. At least it could be claimed that the mormons understood it this way, and thus they were not surprised by not having heard of this. However, even though the Nephites (according to the Mormons) went extinct, their destroyers, the Lamanites, are believed to be the “indigenous people of America and Polynesia” (wikipedia:

    So, couldn’t they have asked the native Americans? 😉 To this, however, the Torah jew would reply, that no, a people might build a tradition that negates something that happened and/or with time simply forget things, but would never positively affirm something that they didn’t know to be true.

    To this I would say that the whole premise is flawed. Just the existence of a curiosity (a people with a belief such as the jews) doesn’t imply anything more than the fact that curiosities exist (tail phenomena in statistics, possible to simulate in Excel). The attempt to claim that strange phenomena don’t happen is wrong, the world is full of them, almost to the point when weird, illogical behavior of individuals and groups (the Chinese all waving Mao’s little red book f.ex., the Nazis etc.) become… normal. So the mormons are an example of another strange phenomenon, just quite similar to the phenomenon of the jews. So they’re not exactly the same, but similar the are in the sense that if you say that the mormons accepted a claim of a revelation even though their was no clear tradition thereof, so did the jews (at a certain point, in the beginning of the religion).

    But let’s not forget that in the end of the day, the burden of proof is on the believers, and the only thing they can point to is a curious phenomenon, saying that the “natural explanation” seems weird. Ok, so it seems weird, but the world is full of weird things, some more similar to this, others less.

  32. I’ve never seen people talk about this point, so it may be worth pointing out. I’ve always known that in story details, numbers, and names, there are many contradictions between the various books of Tanach that make religious people look so cute when they try to come up with clever answers for what are obviously contradictions. But I recently found a contradiction that blew my mind with regards to the Kuzari argument. In general, it shows that the refutation to Kuzari lies not in focusing on the number 600,000 that were leaving Egypt in particular, but that ALL the numbers in the Bible that sound unreasonable and unreliable should be treated with the skepticism that they deserve. Well, without further ado, here is the contradiction. Comparing the same story in Chronicles and Kings regarding David sending Joab to take a census of Israel (where Yahweh gets angry and smites 70,000), we come across what is the largest discrepancy in the Hebrew Bible that I am aware of. The census of the Israelites in I Chronicles 21:5 is 1.1 Million. In II Samuel 24:9 there were 800,000. Now of course you don’t have to hold your breath long before the floodgates of apologetics come swinging open from the mouths of the practitioners of Rabbinic Talmudism. But the obvious truth is plain as day for all to see in the text: a discrepancy valued at 300,000, which, assuming my math is correct, is a full 50% of the Kuzari proof of 600,000. When you couple this fact with other impossibilities, like 120,000 soldiers of King Ahaz of Judah slain in one day by King Pekah of Israel you begin to see how absurd Bible numbers are in general, not just the Kuzari proof figure of 600,000. 120,000 soldiers slain in one day with swords and shields and chariots! Amazing isn’t it? That’s something that even Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn’t accomplish (60-80K in one day)! Bravo to those statistics! When you really begin to meditate and internalize the magnitude of the discrepancy I just cited, the whole Kuzari argument falls to dust. Anyone can argue anything of course – 1000 rationalizations can be thought up, just like there are many arguments on the homepage of the Flat Earth Society. But argue all you like, AIN MIKRA YOTZEI MIDAY PSHUTO!

  33. Thanks for your contribution. I think one of the biggest contributors to biblical numbers being in error is the similarity between eleph and alluph. Hebrew (Phoenician) was written without vowels and these two words (thousand and chief) are identical without vowels.

    Ed note:
    The Rabbis teach that Torah verses cannot teach outside the confines of the plain textual meaning, “Ain mikra yotzei miday pshuto” (Tal. Sabb. 63a).

  34. Martin, your logic and critical thinking is flawed.

    1. That Egyptians didn’t record something (the didn’t record everything) in their history (which may not have been widely read by their people) is of no consequence.
    2. An entire generation of Jews would have not only had to perpetrate a lie not their children, but kill dissidents, and keep the reason for it hidden, all while practicing lifelong life-altering inconvenient and limiting lifestyles that they made up for no reason (since they could have done all the same without all those “unnecessary” laws). Either way, in no way comparable to Egyptian omission.
    3. Archeological evidence in Egypt would not prove the absence of people, it could only fall short of proving their presence, and this is not proof of absence. Basic logical fallacy there,
    4. None of the people who actually came in contact with the supposed Nazareth fellow had any connection to the later established church. Therefore everything the church says from Paul on (even if he [one man] says he got it from the original witnesses) is worth any more than the weakest link in the chain of transmission, I.e. one man, especially since supposedly the followers of the Nazareth were ALL local Jews, while the followers of the church were almost entirely foreign gentiles.

    The point Patrick, is not that you please restate your argument or what have you, but rather that you not only don’t have one, but are incapable of objectively and honestly stating one.
    In effect I am saying your intellectual integrity, as I have shown herein, is too compromised for you to attempt such arguments, never mind arguments that will never succeed.

    That you think you were going to reveal a flaw in the Kuzari approach that went unnoticed all this time is a sign of unrelated issues of yours. Only “the choir” and ‘the fools’ could have seen anything in is worthless attempt.

    -Get well

    P.S. I will not be returning to comment further or address any possible replies as it is not worth my time to bother with this drivel.

  35. You also don’t account for how there must always have been Jews of every age, and the tradition of Torah and Hashem involves much working in every individuals life, with common knowledge of two languages and alphabets, at the time of supposed foisting on a massive population, with cultures and peoples the world, of any stripe, drawing traditions and practices from the tradition of Torah and Jews, dating back thousands of years. Then there are scientific models that account for a singular host of nature, and a preexisting predestined table of possible beings and their representation, at-least each as their DNA combination in a table of all possible successful combinations of all beings, onward, a definite hypothetical harmony and/or congruity that all operations and occurrences are relative to in whatever degrees of disharmony that may seem to pervade all, even the laws of physics themselves demonstrate everything relating against an interconnected and/or central uniformity and/or “mover”.

    Evidence can only prove a positive, and disbelief is worth nothing, and disregard for evidence: human, testimonial, textual etc as insufficient for basic deduction brings as much inquiry into the evidence as the one doing so.

    Face the facts, existence has been awesomely unbelievable before you considere d these existential questions.

    -Good Day

  36. That Egyptians didn’t record something (the didn’t record everything) in their history (which may not have been widely read by their people) is of no consequence.


  37. P.S. I will not be returning to comment further or address any possible replies as it is not worth my time to bother with this drivel.

    You returned. :) See “cognitive dissonance” you suffer from it.

  38. Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your article seem to be running
    off the screen in Safari. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or
    something to do with web browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know.
    The layout look great though! Hope you get the issue resolved soon. Kudos

  39. I know I am a few years too. late. The Kuzari principle needs empirical support. Assume we have an actual sample of cases that have been examined by historians and they find indeed the cases are true or likely true. Should we accept the Sinai story, Aztec story, Pygmy Story, Christian Story, WBCW story etc: NO. Because all the cases that we find likely true did not involve miracles/supernatural. You can not extrapolate beyond the space supporting the principle.

  40. It’s never too late for the Kuzari principle. As long as there are people who are suffering spiritually and in need, ‘arguments’ like these which sound ‘close enough to valid’ will be accepted by those in emotional need.

    You’d be interested to know, speaking of seeking evidence, that in the 50’s the Israeli Goverment commissioned a group of archaeologists to go all over Israel and find proof of the Torah stories. They (quietly) found nothing. Modern Archaeologists from Israel itself deny the veracity of the Torah as a historical document.
    Here is one such Archaeologist:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *