u/Dry-Dance-9891

Greetings, everyone. I am compiling a reading list on the late Second Temple period and the formation of the Jewish canon (or Tanakh). I would like to know which books or primary source collections are currently regarded by historians as benchmarks of excellence.

Specifically, I aim to understand and investigate how Jewish thinkers and communities of the final centuries BCE and the first century CE conceived the authority of texts (for example, Paul, Josephus, or Philo). I am looking for literature that addresses:

1. The concept of inspiration or authority: how the Ruach (or divine breath) was understood to act upon the authors (exploring ideas akin to those later described by Philo or Josephus), or the question of authority, specifically, whether the Writings held the same status and importance as the Torah and the Prophets.
2. The chronology of the canon: moving beyond obsolete theories such as that of Yavne/Jamnia, what academic or historical studies and works reflect a consensus on how the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings came to acquire their definitive structural form?
3. Primary sources from the 1st century BCE or earlier: recommendations for texts or commentaries that shed light on how ancient Jews classified their sacred literature prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even before its construction.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for classic textbooks, recent peer-reviewed studies, or critical editions that you consider essential. Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge, and have a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

Greetings, everyone. I am compiling a reading list on the late Second Temple period and the formation of the Jewish canon (or Tanakh). I would like to know which books, monographs, or primary source collections are currently regarded by historians as benchmarks of excellence.

Specifically, I aim to understand and investigate how Jewish thinkers and communities of the final centuries BCE and the first century CE conceived the authority of texts (for example, Paul, Josephus, or Philo). I am looking for literature that addresses:

1. The concept of inspiration or authority: how the Ruach (or divine breath) was understood to act upon the authors (exploring ideas akin to those later described by Philo or Josephus), or the question of authority, specifically, whether the Writings held the same status and importance as the Torah and the Prophets.
2. The chronology of the canon: moving beyond obsolete theories such as that of Yavne/Jamnia, what academic or historical studies and works reflect a consensus on how the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings came to acquire their definitive structural form?
3. Primary sources from the 1st century BCE or earlier: recommendations for texts or commentaries that shed light on how ancient Jews classified their sacred literature prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even before its construction.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for classic textbooks, recent peer-reviewed studies, or critical editions that you consider essential. Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge, and have a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

Hola a todos, si es una pregunta causal y frecuente pero me quiero centrar en algo:

¿Cómo escribir en sí?, o sea, hay diferentes tipos de escritura, no es lo mismo un ensaño academico que un guion. Ahora, planeo escribir una novela historica (con castellano clasico e antiguo para ser muy especifico). Ahora bien, no sé como escribir libros.

Si sé utilizar el lenguaje clasico e antiguo como "vosotros sois" o "deberéis", "a vuestra mercerd" entre otros. Pero, como han visto no es lo mismo escribir como estoy escribiendo que escribir como Don Quijote la Mancha, pondré un ejemplo de un párrafo de Don Quijote:

"Cuando se hubieron internado en aquellas espesuras, no tardaron en encontrar a Cardenio, entonces en su entero juicio, libre de aquel furioso accidente que tan a menudo le sacaba de si mismo. Contóles Cardenio la causa de su daño,y tomando mutua empatía, se habrían encaminado en busca de Don Quijote de no distraerles la atención una aventura inesperada.
Una voz llegó a sus oídos, que con tristes acentos decía de esta manera:
—¡Ay, Dios! ¿Si será posible que haya llegado al lugar que pueda servir de escondida sepultura a la caga pesada de ese cuerpo..."

Bueno, no voy a copiarlo todo. Pero se entiende el lenguaje al que quiero llegar e gramatical.
No es el mejor ejemplo pero es el que tenía en la mano, otro ejemplo sería RVR1960 con su mitico lenguaje.

Pero centremosno en Don Quijote, véis cómo esta formulado e escrito. No es un: "Y Juanito fue a buscar pelea y murió" tiene su descripciones e detalle.

¿Cómo puedo formular e escribir?

Okay, let me expand a bit more on my question:

In the Prologue to Ben Sira (c. 132 BC), the division into Law, Prophets, and Writings is mentioned.
It is worth noting, however, that they are not called "Writings," but rather "the other books/writings" or "ancestral writings."

In the CEB, verses 1–2 state the following:

>"Numerous and wonderful things have been given to us through the Law, the Prophets, ^(2) and the other writings that followed them." 

According to some responses in this subreddit (which I cannot link to, as they have been deleted), while the Torah and the Prophets were considered sacred and were already closed and canonized, the third section was fluid; there were books present in some communities that were absent in others. It is often said that this section was finalized around 90 or 100 AD, although others argue that this is a myth and that the canon was already consolidated by the 1st or 2nd century.

Then I don't know which one is true.

So, how did Jewish communities view the authority of this third group of texts (such as Job, Ecclesiastes, or the Psalms) in comparison to the legislative authority of the Torah or the oracular authority of the Prophets (Nevi'im)?
Specifically, I am interested in an answer regarding the following aspects:

1. While the prophets spoke using the formal formula of revelation ("Thus says Yahweh"), wisdom and poetic texts such as Job or the Psalms include existential debates, laments, and direct human questions addressed to the Divine. Did a conscious distinction exist in Second Temple Judaism regarding the dogmatic or normative weight of these books versus prophetic literature? Or did every statement, regardless of the book, carry the same weight?
2. In the first century CE, authors such as Philo of Alexandria (De Vita Mosis II, 188–191) explicitly conceptualized distinct degrees of oracles and divine inspiration, distinguishing direct dictation from ecstasy or the guidance of the author's intellect. Did these first-century CE frameworks reflect an understanding already established in pre-first-century BCE Judaism, or were they a later theoretical-theological systematization?
3. Does scholarship know whether Second Temple scholars or communities employed this distinction regarding the "level of breath"—or the degree of the *Ruach’s* intervention—to explain theological tensions between books? For instance, in the case of the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes—whose arguments challenge the Torah’s theology of direct retribution—was it understood that the author’s voice, doubts, or grief took precedence over direct divine dictation while still remaining under the general guidance of the Spirit, or was this not a subject of theoretical discussion?

I look forward to your replies.

Was the classification of these books originally based on perceived levels of divine inspiration (or on how the divine breath/Ruach was understood to act upon the authors), or was it primarily a practical categorization designed to group texts for functional and liturgical reading purposes?

I decided to investigate this on my own and found two respected authors:

Philo of Alexandria (*On the Life of Moses* II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles, which he describes as forms of divine manifestation ((Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)
Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

> they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

Initially, I intended to use paragraph 8, believing it indicated a structural distinction; however, upon reading it in full, I realized it refers to the distinction between divine books and apocryphal works—or those considered worthy of reading, such as the First Book of Maccabees.

Nevertheless, both sources postdate the 1st century BCE. I have been unable to find sources predating the 1st century BCE (or sources documenting thought prior to the 1st century BCE on this specific topic). This brings me back to my main question: Was the categorization of the canon based on distinctions regarding the nature or degree of divine inspiration (*Ruach*), or was it an organizational grouping to facilitate the preservation of the texts and their public reading?

I look forward to your comments.

(Corrected post)

Greetings to all historians. I am passionate about researching topics related to the biblical canon, historical persecutions, and the development of early theological frameworks. Recently, while delving into the formation of the canon, a specific question arose:

Was the classification of these books originally based on perceived levels of divine inspiration (or on how the divine breath/Ruach was understood to act upon the authors), or was it primarily a practical categorization designed to group texts for functional and liturgical reading purposes?

I decided to investigate this on my own and found two respected authors:

Philo of Alexandria (*On the Life of Moses* II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles, which he describes as forms of divine manifestation ((Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

>they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

Initially, I intended to use paragraph 8, believing it indicated a structural distinction; however, upon reading it in full, I realized it refers to the distinction between divine books and apocryphal works—or those considered worthy of reading, such as the First Book of Maccabees.

Nevertheless, both sources postdate the 1st century BCE. I have been unable to find sources predating the 1st century BCE (or sources documenting thought prior to the 1st century BCE on this specific topic). This brings me back to my main question: Was the categorization of the canon based on distinctions regarding the nature or degree of divine inspiration (*Ruach*), or was it an organizational grouping to facilitate the preservation of the texts and their public reading?

I look forward to your comments.

Greetings to all historians. I am passionate about researching topics related to the biblical canon, historical persecutions, and the development of early theological frameworks. Recently, while delving into the formation of the canon, a specific question arose:

Was the classification of these books originally based on perceived levels of divine inspiration (or on how the divine breath/Ruach was understood to act upon the authors), or was it primarily a practical categorization designed to group texts for functional and liturgical reading purposes?

I decided to investigate this on my own and found two respected authors:

Philo of Alexandria (*On the Life of Moses* II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles, which he describes as forms of divine manifestation ((Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

>they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

Initially, I intended to use paragraph 8, believing it indicated a structural distinction; however, upon reading it in full, I realized it refers to the distinction between divine books and apocryphal works—or those considered worthy of reading, such as the First Book of Maccabees.

Nevertheless, both sources postdate the 1st century BCE. I have been unable to find sources predating the 1st century BCE (or sources documenting thought prior to the 1st century BCE on this specific topic). This brings me back to my main question: Was the categorization of the canon based on distinctions regarding the nature or degree of divine inspiration (*Ruach*), or was it an organizational grouping to facilitate the preservation of the texts and their public reading?

I look forward to your comments.

Greetings to all historians. I am passionate about researching topics related to the biblical canon, historical persecutions, and the development of early theological frameworks. Recently, while delving into the formation of the canon, a specific question arose:

Was the classification of these books originally based on perceived levels of divine inspiration (or on how the divine breath/Ruach was understood to act upon the authors), or was it primarily a practical categorization designed to group texts for functional and liturgical reading purposes?

I decided to investigate this on my own and found two respected authors:

Philo of Alexandria (*On the Life of Moses* II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles, which he describes as forms of divine manifestation ((Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

>they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

Initially, I intended to use paragraph 8, believing it indicated a structural distinction; however, upon reading it in full, I realized it refers to the distinction between divine books and apocryphal works—or those considered worthy of reading, such as the First Book of Maccabees.

Nevertheless, both sources postdate the 1st century BCE. I have been unable to find sources predating the 1st century BCE (or sources documenting thought prior to the 1st century BCE on this specific topic). This brings me back to my main question: Was the categorization of the canon based on distinctions regarding the nature or degree of divine inspiration (*Ruach*), or was it an organizational grouping to facilitate the preservation of the texts and their public reading?

I look forward to your comments.

Greetings to all you distinguished historians. I am researching the internal development of the biblical canon during the Second Temple period. Specifically, I want to know if there is any pre-B.C. evidence demonstrating that the Jews regarded the inspiration of the Ketuvim (for example, the Book of Job or the Song of Songs) as fundamentally different—whether in nature or intensity—from the direct divine revelation found in the Torah or the Prophets.

I myself have already witnessed two instances—at different levels—of the "breath," or the way the *Ruach HaKodesh* manifests and acts.

I have here the words of Philo of Alexandria (Life of Moses II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles—which are forms of Divine manifestation. (Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

>they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

I was going to use paragraph 8, which I thought indicated a distinction, but upon reading it in full, it refers to the distinction between Divine Books and apocryphal ones—or those worthy of reading, such as Maccabees.

However, those two sources postdate Christ.

I seem to recall it was about 30 or 40 years later; nevertheless, I believe they reflect ancient Jewish thought rather than the new. After all, a theology does not change that much in 40 years. But, to be certain of my reasoning, I am turning to you to find out if there are other sources I am unaware of.

I look forward to your reply.

Greetings to all you distinguished historians. I am researching the internal development of the biblical canon during the Second Temple period. Specifically, I want to know if there is any pre-B.C.
evidence demonstrating that the Jews regarded the inspiration of the Ketuvim (for example, the Book of Job or the Song of Songs) as fundamentally different—whether in nature or intensity—from the direct divine revelation found in the Torah or the Prophets.

I myself have already witnessed two instances—at different levels—of the "breath," or the way the *Ruach HaKodesh* manifests and acts.

I have here the words of Philo of Alexandria (Life of Moses II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles—which are forms of Divine manifestation. (Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius ​​Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

>they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

I was going to use paragraph 8, which I thought indicated a distinction, but upon reading it in full, it refers to the distinction between Divine Books and apocryphal ones—or those worthy of reading, such as Maccabees.

However, those two sources postdate Christ.

I seem to recall it was about 30 or 40 years later; nevertheless, I believe they reflect ancient Jewish thought rather than the new. After all, a theology does not change that much in 40 years.
But, to be certain of my reasoning, I am turning to you to find out if there are other sources I am unaware of.

I look forward to your reply.

(Post reposted for violating the subreddit's third rule regarding the failure to provide the names of the translators or the version of the sources.)

Oh, Señor

¿Por qué los impíos prolongan sus vidas en pecados y los justos se les quita los días de su vida?.

¿Por qué los impíos cosechan obras que son de los justos y los justos cosechan obras que son de los impíos?.

Mi Dios, ¿Por qué nos has desamparado?.

¿Por qué tu rostro se ha escondido ante la iniquidad?.

¿Hasta cuándo despertarás para regocijarnos?.

Acuérdate de tus ovejas oh, Pastor mío.

¡¿Por qué?!.

Cuán hermosa eres Tierra mía
Tú eres un deleite a nuestros ojos.

Madre Tierra amparas a sus moradores
Cual ave cubre a sus pollueos.

Tu cabellera desciende con armonía
y sacia a los sedientos.

¡Dichosas eres!

Antes que fuésemos formados
Tú ya eras.

Los animales del campo maman de tus senos.
¡Madre de todos eres!

Tus bellos cantos regocijan a los moradores.

¡Cuán glorioso eres Cielo!
Que abrazas con inmensidad a tu cónyuge.

Tu aliento da aire fresco a los moradores
y acaricias a su amada.

Tus guedejas se espercen sin figura alguna
y son bellas a su vez.

Tus radiantes y resplandecientes ojos
Señorean la noche.

Las tinieblas son acogedoras
y los animales descansan en tu amada.

Tu semen cae sobre el regazo de la Tierra
Concibes a tu amada.

Brota de ella todo árbol delicioso para la vista.

Con la lumbrera mayor besas a tu esposa
y con la lumbrera menor duermes con ella.

¡Amado seas, Padre Cielo!.

No encontré ningún flair que cubra ciertsmente mi cuestión.

Ahora acudo a vosotros, pues, sois una organización grande de escribas que mostrais sus obras.

Y he aquí yo queriendo hacer poemas, cantares y salmos.

Pero no sé como hacer que mi pluma suelte palabras elocuentes y armoniosas.

¿Podeis ampararme y soltar consejos a mí?.

Cuán grande es la hermosa Tierra, un deleite a los que moramos en los campos de ella.

Su cabellera desciende con armonía y le calma la sed de los sedientos, antes que fuéramos formados, ella ya era.

Los animales maman de sus senos que brindan pasto y semillas.
Madre Tierra ampara a sus moradores como un ave que cubre a sus hijos con sus alas.

¡Cuán sublime e inmenso es el Cielo!, que abraza con su inmensidad a su cónyuge y su aliento da aire fresco a los moradores de su amada y la acaricia con delicadeza.

Su cabello forma siluetas caóticas y a su vez, siluetas bellas a nuestros ojos.

Sus radiantes y resplandecente ojos cubren la noche, donde las tinieblas son acogedoras y los animales descansan.

Su semen cae con armonía en el regazo de la Tierra, preña a su amada y de ella brotan todo tipo de árbol bueno para la vista.

El cabello de la amada se llena de su esposo, con ella, él se regocija.

Con la lumbrera gigante besa a su esposa y con la lumbrera pequeña duerme con ella.

¡Amado sea el Padre Cielo!.

If a Supreme Mind possesses all knowledge of this vast universe—including your actions—and that Mind can see the future, are we really as free as we believe? How profound is this question, which led philosophers to rethink their very foundations and was once labeled “heresy” and “blasphemy”? Today, it remains a matter of debate.

If God knows all your future choices in advance, are we truly free? Or is it a book that He wrote and saw? If so, is all evil just God’s game?

Well, various perspectives have tried to resolve this question, but none had presented a compelling argument without visible flaws—until one perspective caught my attention: God’s decision to know and not to know.

>“God decides whether or not to see the future; if He hasn’t seen your future, your future doesn’t exist.”

And I found it comforting, but at night, one asks questions.

If He doesn’t decide to see the future, does that future still exist? For something to be contemplated or not, that something must exist. If He didn’t want to see it, does that written ending still exist, like a book you don’t want to finish?

And who wrote that future? If it was God, He knows it; if it wasn’t God, then who?

Omniscience and Free Will:

This topic is so vast that it has led many philosophers to attempt an answer. From Thomas Aquinas to the present day, there have been—and continue to be—various perspectives on omniscience and free will.

The most famous is that of Catholicism, which was adopted at the First Vatican Council (1869–1870):

The Council infallibly decreed that “all things are open and manifest to His eyes, even those that will come to pass through the free action of creatures.”

According to Catholicism, God is totally omniscient, and whatever you will do, He knows from the very beginning of your conception. But if this is indeed the case, as stated in this great Council, it nullifies free will; for if God sees the future, that future is already written, and you would not be responsible for your actions.

Others say:

>“But God is outside of space and time; for Him, the past, future, and present are like a map. You are on a great mountain, and when you look down, you see the beginning of the path, the middle of the path, and the end of the path.”

A welcoming and, at first glance, logical explanation, popularized by Boethius to explain omniscience and free will. But that raises the original question. If the future already exists for God to see, then the future is as real and immutable as the past; we are not creating our own path, we are following the one that is inevitably laid out for us.

Another theological perspective, largely adopted by Jesuits and modern religions such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is the idea that Jehovah God chooses to know and not to know the future; but as we saw at the beginning of this extensive commentary, a contradiction arises:

"If He chooses not to see the future, that future still exists; for something to be contemplated or not, that something must exist. If He did not want to see it, that predetermined ending still exists, like a book you don’t want to finish.

And who wrote that future? If it was God, He knows it; if it wasn’t God, then who?".

That is the great flaw in this solution, for either God is a liar, or He is a God inferior to another being who writes the future. This shatters all of monotheism and all the holiness spoken of in the Holy Scriptures.

I used to be comfortable with that answer, but in the quiet hours of the night, I asked myself those questions and decided to answer them.

The power went out that Tuesday, and with the topic still on my mind, I worked it out.

In that notebook lies the first draft of this topic, and I feel proud and happy.

Omniscience and Free Will.

Explanation:

In one of my many conversations online and in daily life, there is an analogy that stuck with me, and I feel it is important for understanding how God’s predictions and prophecies work.

>“If you throw a rock toward a point, but you calculated the force of your throw, the trajectory of the wind, and the weight of the rock, and the equation you made shows that the rock will land at X, and when the rock lands, it is at X—did you see the future or did you predict the future?”

And that analogy is a fundamental pillar of my perspective: Yahweh is not a God who sees the future; He is a God who predicts the future. When He makes prophecies like those concerning Cyrus the Great and the fall of Babylon. (Isaiah 44:28).

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the people of Israel would be taken into captivity in Babylon and that this exile would last exactly 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11-12).

It is not that God saw the future; He did not foresee how the parents named their son “Cyrus,” nor did He foresee that the latter would be the savior of His people. I will use the fall of Babylon with its gates open, as described in Isaiah 45:1, as an example:

“to open doors before him, and the doors will not be shut.”

In these prophecies and many others like them, it is not that God saw the future; He calculated the end of Babylon.

For Babylon had a spirit of wickedness, pride, and arrogance that made them complacent, and that complacency made them vulnerable to a siege.

Neither you nor I can fathom the human mind, for we do not see the innermost thoughts of that soul, but Jehovah does; in several passages it is said that “Jehovah looks at the heart.”

1 Samuel 16:7:

“...The Jehovah does not look at the things man looks at; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Jehovah looks at the heart.”

1 Kings 8:39:

“...and you will give to each according to his ways, whose heart you know (for you alone know the hearts of all the children of men);”

Jeremiah 17:10:

“I, the Jehovah search the mind and test the heart, to give to each according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

Acts 15:8:

“And God, who knows the hearts, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;”

And these texts I have shown you provide a solid foundation—another fundamental pillar of this theological perspective. Yahweh sees that individual’s thoughts, every trauma, and how they were raised. And if that individual has not yet been born, He sees the culture, the learning, and the wickedness of the people to prophesy that they will leave the gates wide open.

And with all His equations that yield X, the result will be X.

God foretells the end, but He does not see the end.

Isaiah 46:10:

“I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times what has not yet been done; I say: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all that I please.”

Isaiah says it as clearly as a flame of fire: He announces (or predicts, depending on the translation—it amounts to the same thing) what is to come from the beginning. Not because He saw the end of the book, for there is no written end.

He calculates the end with solemn and sublime precision.

But one thing remains: How was the name Cyrus fulfilled? For to directly manipulate the thoughts of a father is to violate free will. How did God accomplish that? Or how did He ensure with absolute certainty that those gates would be open?

The Holy Scriptures reveal a pattern that repeats itself: a mediator between God and humanity. For in the Bible, we find several passages where Jehovah always uses someone to carry out His plans.

A famous example is Numbers 22:21–22:

“So Balaam rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 But God’s anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of Jehovah stood in the way as an adversary against him. He was riding on his donkey, and with him were two of his servants.”

There are better examples than this one, but this is the only one I can think of: Jehovah sent his angel to stop Balaam and turn him away from his path; he didn’t directly manipulate Balaam’s thoughts and override his free will.

He used an angel—a mediator—to make him turn back, but Balaam still didn’t obey, so there you go.

YHWH would use or did use angels or humans to ensure that Cyrus was called Cyrus and to convince the guard to leave the gates open—or, in the latter case, He didn’t even have to use them; the trust and drunkenness He predicted caused them to leave the gates open.

And in fulfilling His prophecy, it’s not that He contemplated the future. He predicted the future.

End of perspective, written to satisfy my doubts and save time for future philosophers or believers.

Yahweh is a foreknowing God.

That is my perspective.

But there’s a problem I haven’t been able to solve, and it might undermine my perspective: Jesus said that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed.

We could say, “Well, God knows Peter’s personality and the social pressure he was under, so He knew Peter was going to deny Jesus.” Okay.

But how do we explain that it was exactly three times and not four? Or how do we explain that the rooster actually crowed?

? And be careful—let’s not overinterpret things, because nobody likes that (or at least I don’t), since you end up reading into things that aren’t there.

This was translated because I speak Spanish, so if you see any mistakes, you know who did it.

I've already found the answer to that question, so you can skip it.

Hermanos, hermanos míos. Todos conocen la situación actual en está gran comunidad por los usuarios inmundos que invande está comunidad. Se han habido clamores y suplicas para que se hagan justicia y caiga calamidad sobre ellos, y yo las he oído.

Nosotros, comunidad de Latam, unanse a está causa que he apodado con cariño <<Los Hospitalarios de la Red>>. ¿Para qué sirve este grupo?, hay gente inmunda, que se deleitan con los menores y no sufren consecuencia alguna.

¿Cuanta injusticia verdad?, pues nosotros, hijos de la Justicia, tomaero el mando de la responsabilidad y nos encargaremos en cuidar este sub-reddit. Niños, jovenes y protoadultos pueden uniser a está Orden.

Pues he aquí alguien que también fue victima, y he aquí alguien que hizo que despojaran a ese depredador de su cuenta. Dos meses de seguimiento y ayuda de staff fueron suficientes para acabar con él.

u/Competitive-Apple668 se llamaba y muchas otras victimas fueron presas de él, y gozan de felicidad por su baneo.

Un rey puede mover un hombre, un padre reclamar a su hijo pero ¿Qué podemos hacer nosotros?. ACTUAR.

¿Qué hombre puede compararse o asemejarse a una comunidad entera? ¿Qué invasión podrá hacernos caer?.

Yo, Dry-Dance-9891 decreto que hagamos un grupo, y he aquí yo pongo algunas reglas si me lo permiten oh, admins:

1. No se moverá un solo dedo por un me dijeron. Antes de señalar a un inmundo, debe haber evidencia irrefutable (capturas, enlaces, historial).
2. No publiquen ninguna captura al ojo público hasta que se termine el juicio, después de eso podrán publicarla y yo o un voluntario hará la "tesis" del reporte. Manteniendo a todos en anonimato.
3. No le digan nada al depredador que tú vas a reportarlo, eso te puede meter en peligro y al menos yo no puedo ayudar en eso.
4. Yo puedo señalar el jucio, el camino, pero no olvides que aunque aquellos que te mueven sean reyes, o sean hombres con poder, tú eres el único responsable de tu alma. Usted puede decir si le parece justo o no el jucio y será escuchado.
5. Se permiten lo insultos, pero siempre traten de ser formales y civiliazados.
6. Cualquier miembro que use este grupo para acosar a inocentes será expulsado y reportado por la misma comunidad. Aquí protegemos a los jóvenes, no nos convertimos en lo que juramos destruir.
7. No obdediencia ciega, nisiquiera a mí.

No muestres miedo frente a tus enemigos. Di siempre la verdad aunque te llegue la muerte. Protege a los desamparados y no hagas mal. ¿Éste es tu juramento?. Bienaventurados lo que hacen obras buenas, pues seran recompensados.

Paz, respeto entre todo nosotros, no importa si seas religioso, ateo, agnóstico, deista aquí se muestra respeto. Puede que no estes de acuerdo con sus ideologías, lo sé, yo tambien estoy con algunas pero separa al hombre de la ideología.

En el nombre de Dios les deseo lo mejor, amén.