Book Study-Prager's Rational Bible

[nili]

Dennis Prager wrote that Genesis 1 does not seek to teach science, but rather it seeks to teach wisdom and that is why I chose to read this book.

Interesting. For what it's worth, that is a fairly good example of why I choose not to do so.

[searchinmyroots]

I'm not sure I see where Prager presents things as facts.

He states in the introduction -

"In writing this commentary, I have no hidden agenda. My agenda is completely open: I want as many people as possible to take the Torah seriously, to entertain the possibility (emphasis mine) it is God-given, or, at the very least, to understand why many rational people do.


And then -

"First, my approach to understanding and explaining the Torah is reason-based. I never ask the reader top accept anything on faith alone. If something I write does not make rational sense, I have not done my job. On those few-thankfully, very few-occasions I do not have a rational explanation for a Torah verse, I say so."


So he goes out on a limb to say this is just his commentary, that he wants people to believe in Torah for rational reasons and if he doesn't make a clear reason to do so, then he has more work to do.

That is the reason I chose to read this book.

[searchinmyroots]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program -

Chapter 1 comments

I'm not sure I agree when Prager says "the only rational explanation". I think that may be a bit much as sometimes there are other rational explanations, but maybe he just doesn't see it that way.

For instance, for all we know and I'm not saying I believe this, but maybe there is something in outer space that brought us to being in a way in which we cannot fathom. Okay, I know that sounds like "G-d" in some way, but what if it were something different than what is written in the Hebrew bible. I think he could have said it a different way, like - "what I believe to be the only rational explanation" or "a rational explanation may be...".

I do like that he tries to separate Torah from science, but on the same note, he goes into the creation verses and asks how anyone would know at that time how the Earth was formed as it does, in some ways, line up with the way science says it does.

Not sure if I can "rationalize" the way he describes the reason plants were there before the sun. Kind of like it was there all along, but the word refers more to light that can be seen.

I'm happy to see him say there is no definitive answer regarding who is the "us" in verse 26.

I'm not very fluent in Hebrew at all, but I'm not sure if there is a big difference between "man" and "the man". Interesting concept though.

I think I'll skip the part about "Male Terms" and let the ladies comment on that!!

[searchinmyroots]

You didn't finish Chapter 1 yet?

[Chavak]

I have! Just busy, so I will post pretty late tonight.

[searchinmyroots]

I have! Just busy, so I will post pretty late tonight.

Okay, thanks!

Just didn't want to see this thread go dormant!!!

[searchinmyroots]

Okay, I'm going to keep up the comments here.

I've read up to Chapter 9 so far but haven't been consistent with my reading.

Instead of going through every chapter (which I'm still happy to do), I'm going to make some comments on  couple of things I'm not sure I agree with.

Although in Chapter 6 Prager says we need both the"good urge and the bad urge" relating to the word yetzer, in Chapter 8 he writes an essay explaining his belief that people are basically good is foolish and dangerous. This is based on Genesis 8:21 where it says our thoughts are evil from our youth.

Here I disagree because as noted in Chapter 6, we have a choice. Yes, we can think many bad things and act out on them. But overall, we all have some good in us to see what is right and wrong, that is if we understand what that is. So it's really based on what we are taught and society around us. If we have good in us, know what is right and have people around us who practice this, we too can be basically good.

Yes there are some exceptions, but if you look at structured households, whether they be religious Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddha's, Hindu's and others, where the children are taught correctly and the parents lead by example, there is a much better percentage of those who will grow up "basically good".

Also, I was under the impression that verse in Genesis explains that we are to be of a certain age before we really understand what is right and wrong. An infant may seem mischievous, but it is usually curiosity. Of course there are exceptions there as well. So how can we be "bad" if we don't really understand what that means.

In Chapter 9, Prager shows how he believes the death penalty is needed for premeditated murder. Now this is a very controversial topic and I don't think there is a 100% absolute answer. But, I do see people who do terrible things that can rehabilitate. No, it's still not fair to the family of the one who is murdered, but to take a life of a person who can change may not be so great in my opinion either. Maybe this person can be helpful to others and prevent some from doing exactly what he did.

I understand it is G-d's rules, not mine, but there seems to be some agreement I think with how the sages of the time held the death sentence to be.

Okay, I just opened the door for lots of views and comments.

Actually, I kicked the door wide open and know there is lots to be said.

Your up!

[Dana]

Well, I haven't been reading The Rational Bible in sequential order, rather, have skipped to chapters of interest and will comment on what it seems I may agree with.  Just some random thoughts.

Chapter four, I tend to think he is correct when assessing human beings and the role of the conscious, and how conscious alone is not enough for the majority of people to do what is right for any duration, resulting in the necessity of divine revelation.  There is, of course, the exceptionally moral human being, outside of the majority.   I thought he laid out a very good argument in Chapter 8 on why he believes people are not generally good. His outline of historical monstrosities committed by a large portion of humanity rationalizing evil with a clear conscious.  

I agree with what he said in Chapter 6, that people should be judged by the standards of their time and not of ours.  And upholding that thought, the rabbinic opinion of Noah managing to remain a good person in spite of being raised around evil people.  That appears to be a demonstration of strength of character and courage which is something human beings, as a rule, lack.  As group animals most of us do not have a complete understanding of the social laws that govern us.  We should, or at least strive to learn more.  Things like how to maintain an individual, dissident opinion when the pressure is on to go against our conscious.  I think our tendency is towards obedience to a group, either political or religious, mostly baked in a resistance to change.

[Dana]

It's been awhile since thinking of this thread, but today, on the Dennis Prager radio program,  he spoke of different categories of speech. My first reaction was to question where in the Torah or Tanach is the basis for the moral reasonings? https://www.dennisprager.com/why-private...character/

Of the four categories, private speech, private actions, public speech and public actions, only private speech is unimportant. The last three matter the most and it is they that reveal a person's character. I agree, and believe this is in conflict with some Christian teachings that focus on thoughts with scriptural backing.

From the Rational Bible, Genesis 6:5, he expounds further. - People Are Guilty For Their Bad Actions, Not Their Bad Thoughts - He wrote, "The Torah acknowledges this baser component of the human psyche and therefore does not demand that people feel guilty over their bad thoughts. It is only bad actions-the "wickedness" mentioned in the first half of this verse-that are punished. (The one seeming exception, the tenth of the Ten Commandments, not to covet what belongs to our neighbor, is explained in the commentary to Exodus 20:14).

Concerning the goodness or badness of human nature, see the essay in Genesis 8:21: "Why the Belief that People are Basically Good is Both Wrong and Dangerous."   I tend to agree with him completely on his reasoning towards private thought as being irrelevant towards ones character. It is the actions pursuing, despite whatever thoughts an individual has that make up one's character.

Does anyone know or can anyone give other Jewish writings to corroborate what he wrote and spoke of today?

Thank you.

[Chavak]

I really need to get back on track with reading his book. I'm leaving tomorrow for a few weeks for vacation and will get back to it when I return.