Re: Vatican

From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Date: Wed Nov 16 2005 - 08:19:13 EST

In a message dated 11/15/2005 11:11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
Knowing that it's fruitless to argue with Rich, I'll point out for the
benefit of others that this claim is purest non sequitur. There are certainly other
choices between than "6 days" and "myth/allegory."
 What are the other choices, George, and why won't you present them and argue
them instead of saying its fruitless to argue with Rich?

Not only do you not present an alternative, you comment on the point I least
care about in my entire post, a point that was tangential to the main idea
which is that canonicity goes out the window once you abandon the 6 day creation
and you must abandon it if you want a scientific understanding of the Bible.

I didn't say the 6 day creation was pure myth. I speculated it was
myth/allegory. The / means either or. If I had said saga, I don't think there is a great
semantic difference there and I don't care enough about the 6 day creation to
split hairs over the semantics.

The crux of the matter and of my post is that the scientific accuracy in the
Hebrew bible is in its treatment of the psychology and anthropology of human
groups. There is its scientific truth. Not in a 6 day creation (be it
saga,myth,allegory) or even a world wide flood, but in the Ten Commandments we find
social identity theory and in Ezra's insistence on genetic isolation there is a
reproductive strategy. In the fall in genesis is a systematic theology based on
simple psychology we also find attested in the NT, Jewish mysticism and
gnostic texts.

I'll point out for the benefit of others, that you've done nothing George but
try to knock my argument and me by splitting a hair over whether the 6 day
creation is myth or saga without presenting an alternative to that very minor
point I made let alone the major argument of my post which was: lose the 6 day
creation and you have to reinterpret the entire Hebrew bible and also consider
the provenance and content of non-canonical works that complement and support
the contentions in the Hebrew Bible.
What ever it is you're pointing out, it is not going to benefit others to
suggest you can simply declare I'm wrong without demonstrating that I'm wrong
regarding the major point of the post.

rich faussette
Received on Wed Nov 16 08:21:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 16 2005 - 08:21:35 EST