<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 7/23/2013 2:25 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF44207BD21CE44@NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It should be noted that Dr. Farber's Academic Bible studies at Hebrew U,
at which point he had already rejected the traditional understanding
of Torah min HaShamayim (by his own admission), took place BEFORE he
entered YCT.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Lisa
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Is it the contention that simply by studying Academic Bible one has
rejected the traditional understanding of Torah Min Hashamayim?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It depends on how one does it. Most (not all, but most) academic Bible
study starts from the <i>a priori</i> assumption that the Torah was <i>not</i>
given by God in its current form. Further, most academic Bible study
is entirely closed to that as so much as a possibility.<br>
<br>
Engaging in that sort of study as a kind of thought experiment is one
thing. But accepting it is certainly a rejection of Torah min
ha-Shamayim. Sort of by its very definition.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF44207BD21CE44@NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On a related (in my mind) topic -- if time viewing were invented so that
one could observe (but not impact) prior events, would we accept the
"testimony" of the tannaim and amorayim as to what was actually said or
would this be considered a nontraditional methodology?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Get back to me when you have a time machine.<br>
<br>
Lisa<br>
</body>
</html>