Re: Darwinian exegesis

At 12:45 PM 3/3/2005, RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>Jan wrote:
>Yes, Darwinian exegesis exists, but I believe that all of us on this forum
>want to be true to the original text. However, the people who wrote down
>the first time the chapters of Genesis etc. looked at the world in a
>different way than we do, they spoke a language we do not understand, and
>lived in circumstances we cannot imagine.
>
>rich:
>Yes, but you imply that Darwinian exegesis is not true to the original text.

I don't imply anything like that. It does not deal with what I wanted to
say. Yes, I believe that the Bible wants to tell us about our sin, and how
God wants to save us from sin and punishment. "Darwinian exegesis" does not
come into the picture at all.

> I have studied what Jewish mystics have determined about genesis and
> they say there is a science of nature in genesis that is deliberately
> concealed. Have you explored their contention? They read in the original
> language.

So do I if necessary, but I do confess, that I find reading the English
texts with all its shortcomings easier.I only said, and do repeat that:
a. the text in its original form is not known to us. We may have
manuscripts that have copied as they claim, from the original text, but the
manuscripts do not agree with each other.
b. I do not and have not said that what you wrote is not true to the
original text, which we do not know. It may be.

> I don't know anyone who has done Darwinian exegesis but me, (please
> identify someone) and if you haven't read my paper, you can't say it's
> not true to the texts. I see things in the text none of you have talked
> about here and as a Christian on Bible history lists I have had to deal
> with theories about the text that are more startling even than what I've
> presented here. For example, Biblical minimalists believe the OT was
> re-engineered by Ezra at the behest of the Persian kings to empower a
> buffer state on the fringes of the Persian empire that would threaten
> Egypt. In other words, Genesis is a primer for empowering a people to
> conquer. I'm not even going that far. I'm simply saying

Several things you wrote here, I know. I have been part of a committee of
our (continentally organized) church, which studied these questions for a
few years and reported to our synod in 1991. I have discussed some of these
things with Jews. Sorry, even if what you write may be true, it has nothing
to do with what I wrote, I believe.

> that there is a Darwinian thread in Genesis that runs from the fall to
> Joseph that deals with personal and social success.

I simply disagree. It degrades God's Word, which I read and study. Adam's
story is not a success story, nor is Joseph's story. If anything it is a
story of man's sin and falling time and again in sin.

> I don't create that thread. I simply point it out and show quite simply
> how it perfectly conforms to Darwinian selection and to Christology. Its
> not rocket science and its not sleight of hand.
>But no one here will even talk about it on the list.
>
>rich

I still disagree that the beginning of Genesis is a Darwinian story. God
is talking about serving Him, and how "man" instead of serving God wanted
to serve self. I lived in a Jewish neighborhood, where I talked with my
neighbors as well. I have been in synagogues. But nowhere did I read or
hear anything like what you say here.
To satisfy you a bit, I too, do believe that there was and is
evolution. However, the Bible does not talk about that. The purpose of
the Bible is much more, but in the first place a book which will keep us
close to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

BTW I am too old to keep arguing about this. If you want to know my exact
position on this, read the report to Synod 1991 of the CHristian Reformed
Church. For the rest, I may answer you again, but only if you
misunderstand what I am saying.

Jan de Koning
Received on Thu Mar 3 16:33:49 2005