Pardon my bluntness, but I don't think you have the slightest idea of how traditional Orthodox Jews interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Have you ever read a traditional Jewish commentary on Genesis? Rashi, for example, or RaMBa"N? Or are you just mindlessly repeating something you've been fed?
You didn't seem to notice that I wasn't referring to the so-called "creation account" in Genesis, but to the entire first eleven chapters. This portion covers not only the creation but also the Flood, the Dispersal, and the first twenty generations of mankind from Adam to Abraham. Please kindly address this issue instead of hiding behind the creation account.
Are there allegorical interpretations of Genesis in Judaism? Of course there are. But Genesis is part of the Torah, and as part of the Torah its literal sense is true in addition to all the other senses (which are called derash, remez, and sod--concepts I doubt you have ever heard of in your life).
The actual events of creation are beyond human comprehension. There are people to whom this knowledge has been transmitted, but neither you nor I am among them. I am not defending the notion that a surface reading of a translation of the first two chapters of Genesis tells the readers everything that happened. I am saying that what Genesis does record must be factual as well as "true" (I notice you liturgical chrstians are big fans of "non-factual truth," whatever that is--Santa Claus, I assume). I am saying that one should not be free to dismiss these chapters as parables with no connection to what actually happened as so many apostolic chrstians do. Genesis 1-11 (and the rest of the Torah) was not written by savages espousing a pre-scientific worldview; it was written by G-d and dictated to Moses letter for letter. How dare you or anyone treat this text as the pre-scientific religious parables of mere people? Because in order to dismiss all the data of Genesis 1-11 to religious allegory this is precisely what you must do, and this is precisely what no traditional Orthodox Jew, no matter how rationalist or allegorical, has ever done.
My Stone TaNa"KH has a chart in the back giving the dates of the births and deaths of these ancient generations. Does your Catholic bible do the same?
Genesis is a book of theology, not a book of science.
If I only had a penny for every time I heard that! Let me ask you something: is the gospel of Luke a "book of science" because it insists on a baby being born of a virgin, which is scientifically impossible? Is the new testament a book of science for insisting on the resurrection of this man after his death, which is also scientifically impossible? Why are you becoming an anti-scientific obscurantist with regard to these events, each of which is equally impossible as the creation as narrated in the first three chapters of Genesis? I ask you again, what's the difference? Are you saying that cosmogony is somehow uniquely outside the pale of theology (and solely a matter for science to explain) whereas virgins having babies or dead mean coming back to life is not? Are you? Is that what you're saying? It sounds like it is. And I must tell you it smacks of hypocrisy. No, I take that back; it doesn't "smack of" hypocrisy. It is the very height of hypocrisy to agree with Fundamentalist Protestants on all these "new testament miracles" while suddenly pulling out the "science" and "allegory" cards when it comes to Genesis. And if you are an intellectually honest person you know this.
For crying out loud, we have people like Robert Sungenis running around claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth, yet no one has bothered to canonically censure him.
I actually used to like Bob Sungenis. I've corresponded with the man. But unfortunately he went stark raving crazy when it came to the Jews and is now a flaming anti-Semite who blames everything (including Biblical modernism) on the Jews and who accuses all his critics of having Jewish ancestors. As a matter of fact, most of the time when I find a Catholic who seems to respect the integrity of Genesis he turns out to be an anti-Semitic loon. Why is this?
The Fatima miracle is approved by the Church as a matter of pious belief, but no one is required to believe in it.
Wow. How nice that a belief in the Fatima "miracles," though not actually required, are permitted. Why is it that the events of Genesis 1-11 are not afforded the same tolerance? Is the simple fact that this narrative is included in the Torah (much less that it leads it off) not sufficient to accord it respect as a "pious belief?" Why is the Catholic Church (and its liturgical fellows) at war with it?
Do you not see the irony here? First you dismiss the events described in Genesis because that book "is a book of theology rather than science" while accepting such non-scientific claptrap as virgin births and dead mean coming back to life because they are also included in "books of theology rather than science." And then you defend the dancing sun as a "pious belief" allowed while not required when both you and I (and every unbiased reader of these comments) can see that the events described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and the Book of Jonah too, for that matter) are treated as embarrassments that should have never been heard of outside the trailer park.
Are you quite sure you don't see the same irony and hypocrisy in these positions that I do?
Mas cerveza, I've pinged you all along to this conversation and you haven't said anything. I'm still waiting to hear from you.
Sungenis makes a strong case that Galileo was wrong in his dispute with Pope Urban VIII over geocentrism. I have not yet formed a conclusion on the matter but consider it to be interesting. Sungenis' arguments on geocentrism are not made less valid by his antisemitism.
How nice that a belief in the Fatima "miracles," though not actually required, are permitted. Why is it that the events of Genesis 1-11 are not afforded the same tolerance?
Where is the citation to demonstrate Church intolerance toward Creation?
Mas cerveza, I've pinged you all along to this conversation and you haven't said anything.
I was out Sunday.