Re: Darwinian exegesis

In a message dated 3/3/2005 4:32:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca> writes:

>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.

rich:
Have you read my paper? Do you know what I mean when I say Darwinian exegesis?

>>  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.

rich:
I don't know what you wrote. You don't know what I wrote. Where does your "belief" come from?

>
>>  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.

rich:
What degrades God's word? Adam's story explains the human predicament and the stories of the patriarchs show the way out of it. Knowing your predicament is the first step to redemption. Joseph's story is not a success story, from the bowels of a well to councilor of the pharoah?

>>  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
>

Jan,
I'm not looking for an argument. I'm looking to share something, but I've got to lay the groundwork.
The Bible does talk about evolution. It talks about extinction and reproductive concerns constantly (spewed out of the land) and it talks about breeding up and breeding down (Laban's flocks). These are all concepts of evolution. When Ezra returned from exile, he made the people stop intermarrying with the people round about, a practice orthodox Jewry still clings to and the first step in evolving a population is reproductive isolation. These are not facts I am reading into the text. I am calling these items from the text by their Darwinian names because they are Darwinian concepts. That is all I am doing, pointing out the significance of what is there.

rich
Received on Thu Mar 3 18:25:15 2005