Bible stories

I would be very happy if the Rabbi would dedicate a column or series of columns to the subject.
In any case, we leave the Torah reading on Shabbat with a little embarrassment. In my opinion, we need to formulate an organized and reasoned opinion on the subject.

I think I wrote above what I had to say. I have no more intelligent reasons than that, and the subject does not seem particularly important to me. As you know, I do not deal with the Bible because in my opinion it is a useless occupation.

You hardly engage with it, because you know that it is the greatest weakness of Judaism. If, for example, you had to explain the connection between science and Genesis, it would be clear how much it goes against simple intuition and all your high words and philosophizing about the intuitions of the physico-theological argument and libertarianism would be exposed. The Bible is your chestnut. You have nothing intelligent to say about it, because if you touch that hot potato – you will have nothing left.

You forgot to end with ”how”, like any self-respecting Native American speech.

Take on the challenge and write something intelligent, for example, about the connection between geology and Genesis 1. My bet is that the result will be a catastrophe of illusory arguments, and not that your other posts reveal an amusing combination of basic philosophical ignorance and infinite arrogance. As usual in these matters, you will either have to distort the science, or you will have to distort the verses. Either way, the result will be counterintuitive.

Oh! Kwabenga!

Well, then there's no need to write. You wrote everything yourself here.
It's a bit strange that you bother to read all my ignorant and arrogant remarks, but to each his own.

Dan Kimon-
(No, that's the highlight, haha, there's nothing better than a combination of intelligent texts and humor from one person)
As for us, the truth is that I also thought about it and even commented on it a few times here on the site, but in my opinion it's simply a matter of attitude, why would he try to solve the story of Genesis with evolution?
The moment you say it's a metaphor and a parable, then the story is over, right? (Although it still hasn't solved our story, because it can be solved in other religions, but it's better than thinking that this is how the world was created, simply because solving it is much more difficult.)

A.,
“The moment you say it's a metaphor and a parable, then the story is over, right?”

Maybe postmodernists will buy into the idea that words mean what we want them to say, and that we can interpret everything however we want. I think words have meaning, and that we can't interpret them in a non-sense way just because we want to. I have a feeling I'm not alone. In any case, anyone who claims that Genesis 1 is a parable and a metaphor should show that he is indeed able to provide and justify such an interpretation, and not just claim that he has such an interpretation with ostentatious hand waving.

I was a boy and I've also grown old and I've read more than one who claimed to provide a metaphorical/parable interpretation of Genesis 1. Biden was more coherent in his debate than these interpretations. This is a collection of nonsense that is barely worthy of interpretation, and in any case does not meet the basic criteria of a sane interpretation, let alone a valid interpretation.

If you happen to read such interpretations, I will offer you two simple tests that you should try to put the interpretations you read to.

First, what do such “interpreters” do with words that appear more than once in Genesis 1’, for example “earth”? For the most part, they interpret each occurrence of the word differently, without explaining how the meaning of each occurrence of the word fits with the meaning of the other occurrence and how the interpretation given to each particular occurrence fits with the context in which the word is found.

Second, how strong is the connection between the interpretation given to the word and its literal meaning? The metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1’ They rely on quite absurd association games. I remember, for example, in a B&C's class at our yeshiva, they brought us some talent of their own who determined that the 'earth' in Genesis 1 (at least one of its manifestations) is the soul of man, since the earth is a stable thing and the soul is also stable. What's the connection? Beer Nesher. Perhaps whoever thought of this interpretation received it from the mouth of the hero in a revelation from heaven, just as Ezekiel received his interpretations of the esoteric prophecies from the 'I.' What is certain is that this is not a justified and reasoned interpretation, but rather weak association games of the kind that we used to play with as children and thus manage to link associations between two unrelated words. Here is a chain of associations like this: toad, green, grass, vegetarianism, transgender, progressive... And we learned by association that the Society for the Protection of Nature, which believes in protecting toads, is progressive! Wow! Chess for the Hebrew language.

In general, in a real parable the connection to the parable is much clearer, sharper and more immediate. There is a gap that cries out to heaven between the nonsense that pretends to be metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1 and a real parable. You didn't need Nathan to tell David what the parable was in the parable of the wild sheep, because a moment before you read what David did to Uriah and it was clear what the connection between the parable and the parable was. And this is another parable in which this connection is not one of the strongest. Anyone who knows the history of Stalin does not need to be told what the connection is between him and the character of Napoleon in Orwell's Animal Farm, and this is a parable in which the connection to the parable is very strong and very clear. And one could multiply the examples. Since there is no wiser person than one who has experience, I can only recommend that you read proverbs and similes from the world of literature before you begin the task of reading the metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1. Nothing makes them seem more ridiculous than exposure to real parables.

Ok, I got the point... (It's important for me to point out that I'm not an expert on these issues, so don't expect any counterpoint to what you're saying or any innovation)
So I'm curious how you see it? That the Torah is wrong? That evolution is wrong?
Where do you stand in the very diverse arc of this story?

E., apologizes for using the masculine pronoun in the previous message.

Regarding the existence of God: I am a deist-lite. Sometimes I lean toward atheism, depending on my mood. Specifically regarding the Jewish God, I think he does not exist and certainly the actions written in Genesis 1 that he did ’ never happened.

Regarding evolution: I think it is correct.

Regarding the correctness of the Torah: In such a long text, it is unlikely that every comma there is wrong. It seems likely to me that some memory of the distant past was preserved there. However, there are things there that are completely absurd. Among these things are the story of creation in particular and the description of the cradle of humanity in the first chapters of Genesis in general. When you look at the entire text, it seems to me exactly like what humans would write with our imperfect knowledge and our desire to build a worldview that unites the natural and spiritual worlds that are familiar to us. I appreciate the attempt and think that those who stood behind it did their best. And yet, it's clear to me that their overall direction was wrong and that we've learned a lot since then that allows us to see that.

Who are you angry at here, Dan Kimon? Rabbi Michi, who didn't bother to write articles on science and Genesis? Who wrote the Bible? Who offers interpretations that don't make sense in your opinion?

If you don't believe in the "Jewish God" or God at all, just be a Gentile and that's it, like most of humanity. No one is forcing you to remain Jewish. What's your business on this site?

Moshe,
I understand that you are not relieved by my harshness, but the feeling is not mutual. I feel completely comfortable on this site. Has philosophy become a commodity only for religious people or only for Jews? I assume that even Native American gentiles who love Schroeder and support Kerang like me are allowed to indulge in it. And as such, I am reading on a site designed to flatten the philosophical subtext of its author and I am very comfortable doing so, despite the disagreements.

This explains why I am here, and it is not difficult to decipher why I am writing in this thread. I provided an explanation for the fact that our host rarely deals with issues related to the Bible, and in particular Genesis 1, when he refused a request to deal with these issues. In addition, I proposed a challenge that would easily allow him, if he felt like it, to refute my explanation. Have you not heard of anyone on this site who contributed from his point of view to a conversation between others, without being invited to it? Or is that forbidden for Native Americans like me? 😉

We will part as friends and say goodbye.

Dan Kimon
I also agree with you that at the beginning it is the weak point, a pile of children's fairy tales
But – you wrote that Rabbi Michael Avraham's texts are “an entertaining combination between ignorance in basic philosophy and infinite arrogance” Do you really believe that?!

yes.

Of course, anyone who wants to convert is allowed to convert to any philosophy they want, I'm just wondering who you're angry at and why. In your deistic or atheistic system (depending on your mood), truth or falsehood has no meaning, and there is no difference between someone who believes in Genesis and someone who believes in geology. What difference does it make how the world was created and how long ago? Why do you mind people interpreting such and such interpretations of texts that are otherwise irrelevant? And what do you think is the problem with infinite arrogance?

And in general, if Rabbi Michi is so ignorant of basic philosophy, why do you read ignorant things instead of reading wise things from great philosophers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (who, along the way, will also support your mockery of the children's fairy tales of Genesis)?

My question is more psychological than philosophical.

Your question is really psychological…it addresses the body of a person instead of the body of a subject…
“What does it matter how the world was created and how long ago? Why does it bother you that people interpret such and such interpretations of texts that are otherwise irrelevant?”
Are you serious?
What do you mean, what does it matter? If a person does not believe in these texts, it does not mean that he is not interested in understanding why other people are interested in these texts,
Everyone has the right to ask what he wants and claim what he wants, I also do not think that the rabbi's texts are stupid, he thinks that way, it is fine, it does not advance him in the discussion in any case, what is interesting is what he claims about the fact that the rabbi does not refer sufficiently to the biblical text and this is true, does it bother him, what is the connection? This is just an empty discussion as far as I am concerned, if someone here has nothing to add on a substantive level regarding the subject of the discussion, then there is no need to try to put a person down on a personal level, why is it useful?

Dan,
There is no doubt that the allegorical interpretation of the type of “earth-soul” is strange and should not be treated as a way to understand the basic meaning. But I do not see any weakness in Genesis, nor a hot or frozen potato, since the entire contradiction between the Scriptures and the science of geology is based on the basic assumption that the flow of time is absolute and uniform, from time immemorial. After we have gained the light of the theory of special relativity that time is a relative concept, we have no idea either how the flow of time described in Genesis* or how the flow of time in geological dating, and in any case the basis for the entire contradiction is lost.

This problem also lies at the basis of most modern questions about the Bible. They are usually based on the basic assumption of the principle of uniformity, which assumes that the reality we know has existed from time immemorial. But there is no proof for this premise, and just as there were great changes in nature that resulted from the mechanism of evolution, so it turns out that there were many other changes that resulted from other natural laws that science has not yet discovered, or even more than that - changes that occurred in the laws of nature themselves.

*This also appears from the problem of the meaning of evening and morning before the hanging of the lamps.

A. – To remind you, the one who focused his writing on bringing down a person on a personal level was Dan Kimon, who did not write any substantive claim other than defaming the site owner, and I did not see in his words any faint attempt to “understand” why other people are interested in the texts in question, but only an attempt to despise them. If his intention was to find out why the rabbi does not refer to the Bible, he could have asked it in a substantive manner like most of the people asking on the site. Since it clearly seems that he came to vent his bitterness on something or someone, I asked him accordingly who it was and what it was that so upsets him.

Dan Kimon
If you think Michael doesn't know basic philosophy, you can only conclude that you are infinitely arrogant 😉

Moshe,
I don't think you asked a psychological or philosophical question. You don't have to be a genius to know the range of reasons why people talk to each other, even if they disparage each other. There's no great mystery here that's beyond our comprehension.

It seems more likely to me that you wanted to make public all sorts of prejudices you have about deists and theists, when you come across one of them. That's perfectly fine, and I'll respond to that, briefly. In your opinion, we are judges of great atheists like slaves before their master and are obsessed with radical skepticism. My response: Clearly, you don't know me and are attributing to me opinions that I don't hold, because you have prejudices about a group to which I belong.

Forget nonsense. It was already clear to me in your previous message that we wouldn't get anywhere. Okay, it happens. We'll part ways today as friends. In the future, if I respond here again on a topic that interests you, you can interact with me and perhaps we will reach a different result.

It is worth addressing your last response to the author. Indeed, I did not provide a comprehensive justification for my claim about our host's motive for not engaging with the Bible. In my first two messages, I provided one justification, in my opinion. I set an empirical test: a challenge to our host to show that I was wrong by writing something intelligent on the subject that would not be as porous as Swiss cheese. Later, in my response to the author, I may have given a few more lines of thought that shed light on my position. You and I agree that it is certainly possible to provide comprehensive justifications for this.

This is part of the rules of the format. This is an online discussion on a platform that I do not own. Of course, I will not start the discussion with a 5,000-word essay on the topic. When such discussions work well, a rolling conversation will be created here, at the end of which there will be interesting and perhaps convincing material on the table for one side or the other. What is certain is that I put more than enough on the table to start talking about it, to question it, to delve into it, to develop it into a more than exhaustive conversation. I have no problem engaging in a conversation on the subject, as I did with Tz. And as I intend to do soon (probably tomorrow afternoon) with Yossi, both of them did exactly what is expected of anyone in an online conversation: they raised their own point and continued to move the conversation forward.

And what did our host do? What he often does when a topic he doesn't like is brought up: he blocked any possibility of discussion with him. He threw something about Indians and moved on. He has the right to manage his time however he wants, which is why I stopped responding to him after it was clear he wasn't interested. I'd say more than that: I was flattered. Usually, when he blocks a discussion on his own, he uses one of several formulas: “The voter will choose”, “I said everything I said on this topic” (or words to that effect), or “I wrote about it in book X/column Y”, almost never without bothering to refer to the exact paragraph in which the matter was discussed. It seems to me that I have been granted a privilege: blocking a personalized discussion. And to this our sages have said: Oh! Kwabenga!

It sounds to me like Dan is making a point. The Bible is a serious problem for anyone who believes in the Torah from heaven, and the excuses sound almost as strange as the Bible stories themselves. Even the Ramban-style excuses for the secret of the verses of Genesis don't sound particularly strong to me. On the other hand, the Bible stories are a small problem, compared to the halakhic sermons that Zeal extracts from the Bible. (As a jurist, this is unlike any legal system I am familiar with)
Even if the Torah turns out to be true, I don't know why God would come in a taunt with the infidels, when all we had was a book with folk tales, the simplicity of which contradicts science and common sense.
However, and unlike Dan, I remained faithful to the commandments, because of intuition, inertia, and all sorts of foreign words.

The levels of discussion need to be separated. Any substantive criticism is a matter of taste. And certainly doubts about the reliability of the Bible or the creation story have their place, and some of them may not have good enough explanations.
But as I wrote here, I do not deal with this, also because I do not trust disciplines such as archaeology and the Bible, and therefore I do not have sufficient knowledge of them. Therefore, I do not know the findings well enough and cannot assess their degree of reliability and to what extent they should be taken into account in the discussion (it has a few “findings” that are worthless). Such a discussion also depends on the basic assumptions and starting points of the discussion. Anyone who thinks that there is an objective and clean discussion on these issues is naive or stupid. Both the critics and the defenders make assumptions and have an agenda. This is precisely why these discussions are not interesting and not useful to me.
Of course, there are others who deal with and specialize in this and you can contact them. For some reason, Kimon wants to make me deal with these issues, even though I wrote that in my opinion they are neither interesting nor important, which is of course his right, but this is a different discussion from the discussion of the questions themselves. He is not making any comments about this (and this certainly does not mean that he is). If there is a genuine desire to clarify these issues, one should turn to those who deal with them, such as Maor Ovadia, for example, who has written here more than once, and also writes on the website ‘Knowing to Believe’. There one can raise such questions. People like Maor also have comprehensive knowledge of the findings and facts, and quite a few critics will be surprised to discover other findings there or a challenge to the existing findings. Before we even get to the discussion of the criticism and its implications, it is important to check whether it itself holds water.
And finally, Kimon's grandiose statements that already know what I will write and what the value of what I will write will be, and the wonderful confidence that no one knows how to answer the ‘crushing questions’ These wonderful statements are nothing but empty statements. They mainly testify to the declarant, the ruler. Our sages have already said this, the one who rejects in the name of the mother is rejected.
That's it. I wrote these words for the benefit of those who have reason to write to them. There are those to whom the writer goes to Babylon without corrupting the keyboard, and therefore I have refrained from it so far.

Shlomi
I agree with every word, the problem you raised about the Bible being the small problem and the halachic sermons that the sages give is a bigger problem - in my opinion, if it were simply a text that people would just think was true without any practical impact on reality, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it... That's the whole story in the end, a vague and unclear text that sometimes contradicts itself and from which laws for real life are derived, and after all that you also said that you haven't abandoned it, which is also interesting, but I don't think you're the only one, in my opinion what bothers me is that religious people preach about others that they are wrong with such force and quote verses and also "know" whether God will punish them and how He will punish them, I don't get it, whoever wants to be religious can also try to explain why he thinks that way, everything is fine, but this is where it ends, all the preaching and hatred and rift that these shaky verses cause do not justify it, and if someone like Dan claims all sorts of things that to me make sense overall, then either To remain silent because there is nothing to say or to try to answer him like Yossi tried with the assumptions of science that time is constant and so on, but to try to get him out of a resentful person who gets angry at others? Sorry, maybe it really is a bit annoying that such issues are ignored and even silenced by those who ask about them…

Dan,
I have no prejudices against atheists for the simple reason that my opinions about them stem from things they write, such as yours, so they are not “early” but “late”. I systematically find on the Internet that haters of religion outshine the religious on the right in hatred and contempt reflected in their messages (although of course this can also be found on the other side). This is a rather puzzling phenomenon, since an atheist is not supposed to care what others believe, since for him truth has no meaning, while a religious person is supposed to care, and that was my question about you, which you elegantly evaded.
Perhaps the reason for the division is because an atheist has nothing positive to offer, and all his beliefs are based on negation, or perhaps it is because he has an internal struggle with his Jewish identity that does not give him rest. Apparently both are right.

A.,
That people preach that others are wrong, and think they know what will happen in the future, is a common phenomenon throughout the world, and is not limited to religious people. According to this study https://www.maariv.co.il/news/israel/Article-853709
The hatred of secular people for the Haredim for being “wrong” is 20 times greater than the opposite side, so that apparently there is no need for verses or religion to accuse others of all kinds of accusations. See also Yuval Noah Harari's book, amazing prophetic statements about the future, some of which (like ”You will see the era of wars”) are refuted before our eyes, so that apparently there is no need for religion to prophesy…

I agree with you without a doubt that questions should not be silenced in any way, whether they are good or not. Those who care about the truth answer questions and do not silence them. But it is impossible to answer "questions" that have no purpose in asking but to attack and mock, as is clear from Dan's messages. He is not looking for any answer but only to throw mud at the writer and the Torah together. About such a person they said, "You too have blunted his teeth," because since there is no question, there is also no answer.

Shlomi – You are confusing two different issues, the Bible and the sermons of the sages.
I don't understand why the Bible itself poses any problem. All the problems stem from a modern assumption that the world has always been governed by the laws and forms familiar to us. As it seems to me, most of the world throughout history has not believed so, and modern science has not discovered anything to prove this. This is nothing more than a philosophical assumption that completely dismisses all the folktales of the various peoples (as we know, this is not specifically about the Jewish people), without any scientific basis. I see no need for this philosophical assumption, and therefore I am very skeptical of all scientific claims about the past or the (distant) future. The scientific method only works on the present, i.e. the reality familiar to us, and nothing more.
According to this argument, there is no problem and there is no need to invent such and such excuses.

Regarding the sermons of the Sages, I agree with you that the logic in them is not clear, but from all the Shas it is clear that this is a systematic method and not just random inventions in accordance with the new curiosity, and the method in general was accepted by all the sages. So although the method is not understandable to me, I trust that it was understandable to them, and since every legal system relies on the credibility of the legislators, it is no different in our case.

PS There is a difference between being religious by virtue of intuition or by virtue of inertia. Any belief that relies on intuition that things are true so that you are definitely faithful to the commandments despite your difficulties, but if it is by virtue of inertia, it is difficult for me to see how it can be called faithful to the commandments. It sounds more like loyalty to habit or society to me.