Stephen T-B

I can go along with what you say about the greatest thinkers of the Ancient World exhibiting considerable wisdom; I’m just not sure any of them are to be found among the Israelites.
My guess is that the code of civil behaviour which they adopted (and ascribed to their god) was partly borrowed from neighbouring societies. I should think that thanks to trade, quite a vigorous interchange of ideas took place, with different peoples adopting and adapting a range of ideas about the Cosmos, Man’s place in it and how best to organise the societies and communities within which they lived.
By the time the Jews appear as a distinct people, Homo Sapiens must have accumulated a hundred thousand years or more of experience. People certainly were not stupid, but without the benefit of telescopes and microscopes, their ideas about the Natural World were limited to what they could see with the naked eye. This very limited information was the basis of speculations which have been preserved by religious dogmas, and my point is that people who still give credence to these dogmas are necessarily involved in making them seem reasonable in the light of what we now know.
This has involved a process which you might describe as Revelation - bringing those antique ideas up to date - but which I see as increasingly desperate attempts to rationalise the irrational.

long winded fool

Well, I don't think wisdom necessarily reflects where you come from, but rationalizing the irrational is never a good idea. I don't think interpreting poetry in a non-contradictory way is always rationalizing the irrational. Trees can't really sigh and ravens can't really talk, but these things can be true perceptions in more than just a literal sense. There are people who try to rationalize a strictly literal interpretation of religious myths and I share your desire to educate these people, but I think this is essentially analogous to the position: "It is wrong to believe in talking animals because you think Aesop is a wise and honest person." While that is absolutely true, it often fails to take into account the whole purpose of the fable. Aesop can still be wiser than many of today's biologists even if he is "wrong" in his scientific evaluation of animal interaction. If we stop there, we might miss a possibly life-changing personal revelation. (Which seems to be the purpose of the Bible according to many of its authors.) Because many people like to take fantastic tales and myths literally doesn't automatically make them false. It just makes many people naive. And I'm not sure that saying, "They aren't fables, they're ancient bedtime stories," is any less naive than saying, "They aren't fables, they're historical fact." Someone found them valuable enough to record and IMHO that makes them far too valuable for categorical rejection. If they meant something to someone, I want to find out what they might mean to me. I can't do this by having someone else tell me what they mean. I have to read and experience them myself just like the person who recorded them did. My current understanding of science doesn't seem to impair this desire to feel what they felt, nor does what I learn about myself impair my current understanding of science.

Stephen T-B

Thank you for that reply.

I accept your opinion, and while I do not share it, I respect it.

long winded fool

Thank you Stephen!