From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 08:00:41 EST
In a message dated 12/10/02 1:04:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jeisele@starpower.net writes:
> My point was that you can't take the words at face value. We all
> (except the in-denial YECs) accept that. To me, the next logical
> question is "what about the New Testament?" Are these more historically
> inaccurate "stories" to "make a theological point?" Did Jesus raise from
> the dead "in a spiritual sense?" If we can destroy the meaning of words
> in the OT, it is only intellectually honest to challenge the NT as well.
>
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
> http://genesisinquestion.org
>
Jim,
I have been suggesting that a darwinian perspective is viable when
interpreting the OT. One of the principle sources of information I use to
license my attempt to interpret the texts from a darwinian perspective are
the words of Jewish philosophers and Kabbalists themselves who write about
the proper way to approach the texts. adolphe frank in The Kabbalah speaks of
a secret allegorical layer in the OT. Gershom Scholem in The Messianic Idea
in Judaism talks of fthe construction of Jewish myths such as the 36 Hidden
Just Men. In the 36 Hidden Just Men, 36 men support the earth but they are
unknown to us and to each other. In psychology, such an act is called an act
of pure altruism for which evolutionary psychologists find absolutely no
proof in reality. There is no proof that at any time any one ever loved
completely without getting anything in return. But here we have an example of
that idea, that we can owe everything to those we will never know and who can
never be repaid. In a way the Crucifixion is an act of pure altruism, an act
of love which we can never repay, an act similar in construction to the acts
of hidden just men, who can never be repaid and to whom we owe everything.
I don't think we are 'destroying' the meaning of words in the OT. I am trying
to understand them the way they were first meant to be understood by the
people who wrote them and have argued them for thousands of years. It is
obvious that the cosmology and cosmology of the OT must be interpreted. I
also believe that the psychology and anthropology of the OT must also in many
instances be interpreted but the interpetations I have suggested are fruitful
and productive, not destructive by any means. I would never burden you or any
Christians with an interpretation that could not in the final understanding
increase one's zeal and devotion to Jesus Christ not because it is my
specific wish to protect the integrity of the texts but because even in the
interpretation I have found that the texts maintain their own integrity
despite my limitations.
rich faussette
--part1_e.299fee2c.2b273f79_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated
12/10/02 1:04:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, jeisele@starpower.net
writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">My point was
that you can't take the words at face value. We all
<BR>(except the in-denial YECs) accept that. To me, the next logical
<BR>question is "what about the New Testament?" Are these more
historically
<BR>inaccurate "stories" to "make a theological point?" Did
Jesus raise from
<BR>the dead "in a spiritual sense?" If we can destroy the
meaning of words
<BR>in the OT, it is only intellectually honest to challenge the NT as well.
<BR>
<BR>Jim Eisele
<BR>Genesis in Question
<BR>http://genesisinquestion.org
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Jim,
<BR>I have been suggesting that a darwinian perspective is viable
when interpreting the OT. One of the principle sources of information
I use to license my attempt to interpret the texts from a darwinian
perspective are the words of Jewish philosophers and Kabbalists
themselves who write about the proper way to approach the texts.
adolphe frank in The Kabbalah speaks of a secret allegorical layer in
the OT. Gershom Scholem in The Messianic Idea in Judaism talks of
fthe construction of Jewish myths such as the 36 Hidden Just Men. In
the 36 Hidden Just Men, 36 men support the earth but they are unknown
to us and to each other. In psychology, such an act is called an act
of pure altruism for which evolutionary psychologists find absolutely
no proof in reality. There is no proof that at any time any one ever
loved completely without getting anything in return. But here we have
an example of that idea, that we can owe everything to those we will
never know and who can never be re!
paid. In a way the Crucifixion is an act of pure altruism, an act of
love which we can never repay, an act similar in construction to the
acts of hidden just men, who can never be repaid and to whom we owe
everything.
<BR>I don't think we are 'destroying' the meaning of words in the OT.
I am trying to understand them the way they were first meant to be
understood by the people who wrote them and have argued them for
thousands of years. It is obvious that the cosmology and cosmology of
the OT must be interpreted. I also believe that the psychology and
anthropology of the OT must also in many instances be interpreted but
the interpetations I have suggested are fruitful and productive, not
destructive by any means. I would never burden you or any Christians
with an interpretation that could not in the final understanding
increase one's zeal and devotion to Jesus Christ not because it is my
specific wish to protect the integrity of the texts but because even
in the interpretation I have found that the texts maintain their own
integrity despite my limitations.
<BR>rich faussette</FONT></HTML>
--part1_e.299fee2c.2b273f79_boundary--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 12:52:04 EST