Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 21:35:52 EST

In a message dated 2/15/2006 3:22:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
Assigning Genesis to the whims of allegorical interpretation gets you out of
the frying pan into the fire. You have Christ, a living person at one end of
a direct line of descent from a non-living forefather. Where do the non-real
persons dovetail into flesh and blood human beings? What living patriarch had
a fictitious father?
Hi Dick,
I am on other lists with biblical historians and even some biblical
minimalists to whose arguments I've been exposed. There is reason to believe that
Genesis was written after the primary history and that it is completely
I did not know this when I began re-reading Genesis from a Darwinian
perspective many years ago. I knew that the Jewish people had survived longer than any
other people had ever survived because of what was in the bible, and so I
knew the law of god was adaptive.
This is explicitly stated in the bible:

You shall observe my institutions and my laws: the man who keeps them shall
have life through them. I am the Lord

And people who do not keep them are "spewed out of the land;" a biblical
euphemism for extinction. That meant all the stories were teaching us something
about how to survive, and they do. There is a rational underlying meaning to
Genesis that you can see if you use the keys of basic psychology and basic
anthropology and it conforms perfectly to the tenets of Darwinian selection. In
other words, Genesis is essentially rational, once you read it from a Darwinian

I take the Adam and Eve story and the story of Jacob and Esau to explain two
things: the rational nature of the fall and the redemption because that is the
core of all religion, and the rational nature of the Jacob and Esau story
because Darwin pointed out to me what Jacob had done to Laban's flocks.

There have been a number of recent papers on the high mean IQs of Ashkenazi
Jews. The origin of their high mean IQs are in Genesis. I looked for it because
I knew the kabbalists believed the secret of nature was in Genesis and Darwin
said selection was in Genesis.

The paper I've been recommending explains these stories from a Darwinian
perspective. You are welcome to it.

You wrote:

By implication, this calls into question the legitimacy of the death and
resurrection of Christ himself.

By your implication, Dick. I use my mind to apprehend what I can understand.
I use my faith when my mind fails. Faith was good enough for Jesus. It is good
enough for me.

Face the worst case scenario, Dick. What if Jesus was only a man and knew he
would not be saved, but sacrificed himself anyway so that we would have an
archetype, a role model, a man who knew the law and had it written on his heart
and would die rather than betray his principles... Would he be any less than
the Son of God? Not to me. Even in the worst case scenario.

rich faussette
Received on Wed Feb 15 21:37:10 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 21:37:10 EST