A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things.
My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.
As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.
One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).
Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).
Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!
What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.
That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.
The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.
OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.
My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.
As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.
One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).
Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).
Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!
What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.
That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.
The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.
OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.