[design219]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's a good thing they aren't mutually exclusive.

There's your chorus!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Oh yeah, this is so helpful...

So I'm "prejudiced" because I validly interpret the Torah at the "peshat" level? I think you're confused.

Regarding the "esoteric" interpretation: an 14th century book like the Zohar doesn't shed any light on the meaning of the Torah. It merely tells us what a 14th century Jew thought about the Torah.

For a more rational viewpoint, here's the opinion of a 1st century Jew with more credibility: Philo on the Creation.

BTW, I have a pretty good idea about how the Bible was constructed: different oral traditions were assembled and redacted over time. The JEPD theory is pretty well known.

The fact that you choose to only view the Torah as peshat is where you err. Not that I blame you, it gives you more fuel for your crusade. It's much easier to tear something down when you decide to ignore widely accepted meanings and interpretations that undermine your position.

You do understand that nothing in Philo's writings contradict the Zohar, it's only the commentary that pulls in that direction? I invite you to look more deeply into the history of that tradition before trying to play the game of, "Moshe De Lion was a kook". Most of his references arise from oral traditions that predate the Ophites. See, I realize that it would be difficult for a person several thousand years ago to express a concept as scientifically complex as the Creation or evolution. It would be similar to a person in the 15th century trying to explain a rocket launching, which would likely sound like this:

"Men constructed a tower, and by studying air and fire they were able to leave the grip of the Earth to hurtle towards the moon and stars."

Not very accurate by our standards, but it's still true.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by design219 

There's your chorus!

Fine, as long as I get royalties.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The JEPD theory is pretty well known.

And pretty roundly rejected by modern scholars, too.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And pretty roundly rejected by modern scholars, too.

Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The fact that you choose to only view the Torah as peshat is where you err. Not that I blame you, it gives you more fuel for your crusade.

That's not the reason at all. The fact is that this framework of peshat/Talmud/Zohar/etc gives anyone free reign to explain away biblical absurdities instead of admitting that the Torah isn't the inerrant word of God.

You do understand that nothing in Philo's writings contradict the Zohar, it's only the commentary that pulls in that direction?

Philo advocated allegorical interpretation; that's why Judaism ignored him.

I invite you to look more deeply into the history of that tradition before trying to play the game of, "Moshe De Lion was a kook".

I have no idea if he was a kook. I only know that his interpretations were regarded as novel innovations, not established oral traditions.

[rogermugs]

the same way you reconcile your diet with three cups of plain canola oil.

you dont unless you dont mind the hersheys squirts.

[OAW]

Regarding the question posed in the OP, there is only a conflict if one abandons all common sense and chooses to interpret the Adam & Eve story literally. If one interprets it as an allegory as it most certainly is then the whole question is moot. I mean come on people .... for Adam & Eve to be literally true that would inherently require this little thing called incest which the last time I checked was against the rules in the OT. The thought of humanity having its origins in a situation reminiscent of inbred trailer park trash ought to give every "literalist" pause. LOL

OAW

[olePigeon]

Adam & Eve were aliens similar to sea cucumbers or frogs, placed on Earth 6,000 years ago by Mukor (a). They could change their sex at will and, if there isn't anyone else to mate with, will reproduce asexually. That's how you got a bunch of people from nothing without resorting to incest.


a. Mukor - "Mukor rules all galaxies."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?

Many modern scholars now assert single authorship of the Torah, some of whom attribute it to Ezra, which is just plain stupid given evidence like Ketef Hinnom but closer to the truth, at least.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So that's evidence?

Evidence is all around us. What is at odds here is differing interpretations of that evidence as filtered through presupposition. It is like reconciling a square peg with a round hole. There are zealous proponents of Christianity that cannot define the most elementary aspects of it just as there are zealous proponents of evolution that are lucky to have spell-check. The less one believes in Scripture, the more critical they are of evidence that affirms it. The more one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of that same evidence. The more one believes in Scripture, the more critical of evidence affirming evolution and the less one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of the same evidence. The good news is, this aspect of human nature is not exclusive to the evolution-creationist debate.

One thing's for sure, there is an absolute truth. Regardless of what happened, we know for certain something did. When people try too hard to reconcile Scripture with Science, they may render themselves; scientists heralded among those in the scientific community, theologians heralded among those in the religious community, or confused laypeople with Scripture that changes daily.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Not to mention frogs falling from the sky,

This isn't dismantling your argument but frogs (and fish) raining from the sky is actually a well documented phenomenon:

Raining animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?

Stop arguing with Big Mac, you might as well be arguing with Brick Wall.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Regarding the question posed in the OP, there is only a conflict if one abandons all common sense and chooses to interpret the Adam & Eve story literally. If one interprets it as an allegory as it most certainly is then the whole question is moot. I mean come on people .... for Adam & Eve to be literally true that would inherently require this little thing called incest which the last time I checked was against the rules in the OT.

Maybe you've failed to consider that incest was not expressly forbidden until Leviticus 18-20. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were created perfect. You might know by the time of Leviticus there were a great many people.

The thought of humanity having its origins in a situation reminiscent of inbred trailer park trash ought to give every "literalist" pause. LOL

This is the product of our healthy prejudice against it. Incest was not only regular practice among royalty, but was not as taboo historically as it is to us today.

*WIth as much common sense as you claim to have, you must know that most people who live in trailer parks are not "inbred" or practicing incest. It's also pretty unkind to refer to people living this way as "trashy".

[Eug]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Adam & Eve were aliens similar to sea cucumbers or frogs, placed on Earth 6,000 years ago by Mukor (a). They could change their sex at will and, if there isn't anyone else to mate with, will reproduce asexually. That's how you got a bunch of people from nothing without resorting to incest.


a. Mukor - "Mukor rules all galaxies."

Mucor

[olePigeon]

Hah, that's cool. Talk about a coincidence.

This only underlines Mukor's great power.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Mucor

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's not the reason at all. The fact is that this framework of peshat/Talmud/Zohar/etc gives anyone free reign to explain away biblical absurdities instead of admitting that the Torah isn't the inerrant word of God.

In your opinion, of course. It's not difficult to understand that these writings were multi-layered. You make it sound like such a mechanism for reading scripture is new, designed by some insidious modern cult to explain their religious motivations. It isn't. Atheists, such as yourself, can lob bombs all you like, this method is as old as scripture itself.