Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!aecom!schwadro
From: schwadro@aecom.UUCP (David Schwadron)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Interpreting the Bible
Message-ID: <1287@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 12:36:47 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.1287
Posted: Tue Mar 19 12:36:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 04:25:09 EST
References: <1405@hao.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 43

> Here we have the classical "out" that is required for all who profess
> to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.  "It don't really
> mean what it says!!!"
> 
> Week doesn't mean week, day isn't really day.  Black is white and war
> is peace.
> 
> Come on, Paul.  If Genesis is a statement of simple historical fact,
> then the words mean what they mean, and not whatever you feel like
> making them mean.

The words of the bible can't mean what they literally mean. "And it was evening
and it was morning - the first day." What is evening and morning, or a day
for that matter without a sun to rise and set? Without any events (other than
the acts of creation themselves) as a point of referance?

	Non-literal interpretation is a fundamental part of the Jewish belief.
When was the last time you have seen a Jew wear his phylactaries "between
his eyes" and not on his forehead? Or a man who actually lost his "eye for
an eye"? The Bible is a moral code, not a history book. It shouldn't be
expected to give literal historical truths. 
	Number two - (pardon to all fundametalists) who ever said
the Bible is open to a person's whim about interprtation? The Jewish 
opinion is that along with the Written Law, G-d gave Moses an Oral Law, all of
it hidden and hinted in the written Bible, and there are traditions about
how it should be understood. For example, it says (about the festival
Tabernacles) "...and you should take four breeds; a good fruit....", is
this any indication what breed a "good fruit" is? Or phylacteries (to
resume an example I started earlyer), all that is said in description is 
"...and these words which I teach you shall be upon your heart; and you should
teach them to your children, and you should speak of it, when you go to
sleep, and when you wake up. And you should tie them as a sign to your hand
and a phylactery between your eyes" - a totally imractical guideline to follow
too vague. The Oral Law was presented to give us insight into the meaning.
	Maimonides (12 cent. Spain) wrote that the description in
Genesis 1 is only taken literally by a fool and a apostate. The working of
G-d is incomprehensable, Genesis 1 is merely to provide a moral and Cabalistic
model to work with. (Guide to the Perplexed)

	Any further comments belong in net.religion.

					michab
				A Fugue in One Voice