>I would expect from all-knowing God to pass any fact that wasn't commonly known at that time as a proof of his all-knowledge //
Not wanting to extend this beyond the bounds of what is appropriate on HN but a simple (and simplistic) counter-argument is that this is exactly what God does - he reveals through inspiration of various people ideas that lead to revelation. So for example giving Newton the idea that white light was composite. We by our limitations seem necessarily to be unable to cope with a conception of the entire truth of the nature of the universe and so all our understanding is always going to be shadows on the cave wall. Revelation of the full truth of any one facet seems impossible? If the Bible said "there are atoms" then you might well argue, but it doesn't mention electroweak and strong forces, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
Revelations out of context, like telling a Phoenician what the permittivity of free-space is, would almost certainly be dismissed as nonsensical wittering. Indeed that's what happened to the Ancient Greek conception (wrong as it was) of atoms. Perhaps in a millennium or so man will look down on the atomic model as limited in the same way we look on the classical elements.
Re the 10th commandment, things you shouldn't wrongly desire (ie covet); given it's an short list of examples of things not to covet I can't see that there's much significance in those things being together other than that they're examples of things that people look at (even today) and think "I want that". Donkey (chamawr, https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/exo/20/1/t_conc_70017) is as likely chosen for the alliteration with (chamad). If I say to you "don't look at your neighbours beautiful wife, his truck [ox] or flash car [donkey], his servants or friends [the word used in Exodus can mean either] and lust after them for yourself instead" will you accuse me of considering the things desired for to be equal somehow.
Yes, yes, "god works in mysterious ways," "people aren't ready" "they can't never know the truth anyway" etc. Doesn't hold water: religious people were quite good in preserving through the centuries a lot of material that they didn't understand.
The "ten commandments" were given from the God "in stone" and it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God (not to mention that Muslims claim that the whole Quran are all the direct words of Allah).
Only whatever people preserved turned out to be trivial, never "deep" for our current knowledge. And often not only trivial, but flat-out wrong (like in Islam, that semen is produced "between the backbone and the ribs," really) so much that now the religious must claim that most of that "knowledge" was not meant to be verbatim anyway.
>so much that now the religious must claim that most of that "knowledge" was not meant to be verbatim anyway //
You know that's a very recent turn to read scripture literally? The idea that figurative interpretation is somehow a reaction to scientific challenge would be easy for you to dispel with a modicum of research.
>it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God //
Not by mainstream Christianity or the Bible itself (which claims scripture is inspired by God).
> You know that's a very recent turn to read scripture literally?
Yes, and if you read my first now unfortunately gray comment, I addressed exactly the literal readings as those that limit what's easy to pass in the US: I wrote that Pi "doesn't question the literal interpretation of the Bible, 6000 years and all that. So let's celebrate that innocent number." It's right there.
> >it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God //
> Not by mainstream Christianity or the Bible itself
I've meant the texts of the "ten commandments" in the Bible (you've cut the first part of my sentence, it's obvious it's about the ten commandments and I've mentioned the whole Quran as the exact words as believed by Muslims(!)) not the whole Bible, of course! If you're a believer, do you consider the text of the "ten commandments" (e.g. in Deuteronomy 5:4–21) as the actual words of God or not? Were these words exactly preserved or are they already "corrupted" in the Bible?
Not wanting to extend this beyond the bounds of what is appropriate on HN but a simple (and simplistic) counter-argument is that this is exactly what God does - he reveals through inspiration of various people ideas that lead to revelation. So for example giving Newton the idea that white light was composite. We by our limitations seem necessarily to be unable to cope with a conception of the entire truth of the nature of the universe and so all our understanding is always going to be shadows on the cave wall. Revelation of the full truth of any one facet seems impossible? If the Bible said "there are atoms" then you might well argue, but it doesn't mention electroweak and strong forces, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
Revelations out of context, like telling a Phoenician what the permittivity of free-space is, would almost certainly be dismissed as nonsensical wittering. Indeed that's what happened to the Ancient Greek conception (wrong as it was) of atoms. Perhaps in a millennium or so man will look down on the atomic model as limited in the same way we look on the classical elements.
Re the 10th commandment, things you shouldn't wrongly desire (ie covet); given it's an short list of examples of things not to covet I can't see that there's much significance in those things being together other than that they're examples of things that people look at (even today) and think "I want that". Donkey (chamawr, https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/exo/20/1/t_conc_70017) is as likely chosen for the alliteration with (chamad). If I say to you "don't look at your neighbours beautiful wife, his truck [ox] or flash car [donkey], his servants or friends [the word used in Exodus can mean either] and lust after them for yourself instead" will you accuse me of considering the things desired for to be equal somehow.