|
The Jewish View on the Age Old Question
 |
250 Comments Posted
I hae just begun reading the question/answer portion of the chabad web page. I find it answers so many of the questions that many of us have in our hearts but are afraid to ask or afraid to hear the answers to. In your article "how old is the cosmos?" I found incredible insight into an age old question. As I read the article i found myself smiling and feeling further at peace with faith in the Torah. Thank you for another excellent and enlightening article.
|
What I read makes sense! I think our concept of time after the fall is very different then before. I think our fallen existance is a "slowed down" version of what our existance was before. I think this slowing down is what actually creates a separation from the spiritual world. The veil is drawn because they live at a much faster pace then what we can ordinarily detect. Where does the Bible talk about a quickening when the vail is occasionally pulled aside, at G-d's discretion. There had to have been a different realm of time that time was not even measured from when God created Adam to where he had knowledge enough to communicate with God enough to name animals, etc. Could it be that he seemeed instantly grown was because of a difference in the realm of time. Could never get my mind around the concept that 1 day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Can you?
|
My big question to direct at this line of reasoning is then, at what point does the Rebbe expect us to ignore scientific evidence that is put before so many people, which is replicable and readily observable, and take the word of the Torah literally? These conclusions are drawn using the same logical process that much of rabbinical ruling draws upon. Are we to ignore scientific evidence when it contradicts Torah? Does this mean then, for example, that DNA tests cannot prove relationship? And further, why would G-d create a world which contains phenomena that lead people to "wrong" conclusions? This seems deceitful to me, very unlike the G-d I believe in.
Clearly there are passages in Torah which we do not take literally, such as the famous "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." I fail to understand how, where and why the rebbe makes this discernment between a metaphorical interpretation here and a literal interpretation there.
|
Some clarification: There can't be a conflict between empirical science and Torah, because Torah relies on empiricism for truth. How do we know the Torah is true? Because of what we SAW and HEARD at Mount Sinai. Similarly, a Jewish court relies on the testimony of witnesses to determine truth.
Empirical science is a study of predictions. We say, "every time I do this and this under these conditions, this is the result." If the experiment can be reproduced independently by multiple researchers, we say we have discovered a scientific truth. It doesn’t mean that those results always HAVE TO occur. It just means we are now better able to predict the outcome of certain actions.
In order to do empirical science, the scientist needs two things:
1. Observations.
2. A pre-conceived model of the universe as a framework in which to develop hypotheses and organize his observations and results. A model is never true in all its aspects--otherwise it would not be a model, but the real thing. It is only true as far as it is useful.
What I'm getting at is this: Reproducible results provided in a laboratory are empirical science. There can be no conflict between these and Torah. Conceptions of the age of the earth or the idea of gradual evolution of the species are neither observations nor empirical science. These are models that many scientists have found useful. It is in this area that conflicts arise.
|
Rather -interesting - "science" presented here. So much to comment on - but lets just look at the 'Magnetic Field Decay' method for aging the Earth. My goodness -field decay is presented so grossly out of context! Sedimentary rock clearly documents geomagentic core 'decay' and reversals occur approximately every 250k years. Granted we appear in the midst of a weakening / cycle right now - but it is clearly only one of many such events which have occured over the life of the planet. We see evidence of this in volcanic samples taken from around the word and can se core inversions dating back at least 280mya. The presentation of such a grossly out of context data point casts very serious doubt on all the 'science' presented here.
|
These issues are matters of ongoing debate--and they are certainly not core to my thesis. I refer you to Richard Milton's book, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" referred to in that footnote. Since its publication, he has been involved in much debate, but sadly, most of it has amounted to ad-hominem name-calling by his detractors.
|
Is there a possibility of a 200 year discrepancy in your calculation of the cosmos? Or is my math just truly that bad? Could the cosmos soon be entering a Sabbath rest?
|
The traditional age of the world, as mapped by Biblical chronology (and according to traditional interpretations of that chronology) is 5767 years to this date. If each millennium equals one day (as we believe), then Shabbat begins in 232 years. Before that time, the moshiach has to come, build the Temple in Jerusalem and redeem the Jews and the entire world.
It should be added that Jews customarily bring in the Shabbat early.
|
Thank you for an absolutely intriguing and informative article on a mystery we all ponder about, with our limited intelligence.Our doubts regarding the absurd notion that Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet, after having emerged as full adults, and it was all done over 7 days are validated in Judaism, and inquiry and doubt is OK, and even expected. oK. So, thanks for writing about this touchy subject and opening minds (my mind, at least) to many possibilities.
|
this week in math book saw equation for carbon dating using logs, and number used was very close to present Jewish year-
5700-carbon -14 ??? is this a coincidence?
|
I've been dragged, kicking and screaming, by quantum mechanics and Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to the realization that the human intellect is a very fine and useful and wonderful tool -- but like any tool, it has insurmountable limitations. Finally I began to actually try what the One God has been telling us in Isaiah 8, 29 and 44, Ezekiel 12 and Jeremiah 4, 8 and 51 -- "the wisdom of the wise will perish; My people are foolish and know me not; the wise will be put to shame." I discovered that the One God flat out refuses to share his glory with men. I'm a bibliophile with hundreds of books by sages and mystics. But when I stopped idolizing the productions of humans and studied ONLY Tanakh, the fog lifted and I learned more in three months than I learned in three decades from all those overrated children. (duhhh... so THAT'S what the first Commandment means... )
|
Thank you for explaining very well and with authority in three ways the nature of the Sefirots. I have been reading and reading about it and there are many descriptions but by far, this is the explanations that made my dendrites connect into eureka!
Please do not stop writing. The world needs people like you.:)
|
In the begining G-d created the heaven and earth.
Each day (evening and the morning) something was done. But, the sun, moon and stars were not created on the first day. So what constituted a day? It must have been something other than sunset/sunrise. The rotation of the earth at the time (even before there was a sun)?
Another thing.
G-d seperated the waters from the waters and called it the expanse, there-in the sun, moon and stars were created. So is the end of the universe water? We (the universe) are encased in water?
This sounds crazy but, imagine, the earth is chaotic (became chaotic?) It is covered with water, how much? millions of miles (deep) of water? It is seperated out from the earth (the compressed earth) and all else is created within (the womb of water).
|
yes, it's coincidence. not all logs will be the same age. so that someone looked for one to jive with the Jewish age of the earth to say "see! this is the proof!" isn't such a surprise. many forms of radiometric dating oh which carbon-14 is just one. only works to about 60k years too if i recall correctly. ones used to arrive at the earth being 4.5 billion years old uses another method.
so basically, you can look and test things until you find one about 5800 years old, then write that carbon-14 dating "proves" the earth is only 5800 years old. but that's not good science. :)
|
One Planck blink. 1/(10 to the power 43) second.
|
The conclusions of "science" are pretty convincing.
Cosmological arguments can get confusing but certain facts are clear.
The account in genesis assumes man knew how to make fire, tools, had domesticated animals, knew how to farm, etc immediately after creation. This is hard to explain.
The flood, being more recent, has serious issues. Aside from leaving absolutely no evidence, how did the animals got to the various continents, etc.
The development of languages and dispersion of humans afterwards is hard to explain. We see evidence of Hinduism developing prior to the flood and somehow the same religion continues afterwards. Did the Indians in America forget how to make the wheel?
There is really overwhelming evidence on long human history and ancient age of the earth.
|
I have to agree with Shannon's question and comment. Apparantly the Rabbi does not understand the scientific process well. Empirical science provides true and repeatable results with a much better explanation than 'we saw and heard it at Mount Sinai'. If empirical science is only a study of predictions, how probable is it that breaking natural laws (miracles) is a certainty? Science has one way to interpret the world while the Torah has another.
|
It's hard to peer into the totality of a person's mind based on one article. Just as scientific answers is limited in that respect that it isolates and limits things that are actually connected in order to observe it.
We are putting together the answers in a neat puzzle, but the puzzle's shape is what's really being debated here..
"Is it round like your head? or is it flat like your head? "- loony tunes
Torah says its round but scientists have never seen a round puzzle--so it can't be true.
|
Are we just ignoring scientific fact and evidence to support bronze age mythes?
One can go to wikipedia under logical biases.
Some of the logical flaws we see above are: expectation bias, hindsight bias, outcome bias.
The notions that author claims are statistically impossible shows the author doesnt have formal training in the subject. Worse, it is not a factual statement.
There is overwhelming evidence to show the universe if 4.5 billion years old. The only data to support the claim that the world is 6000 years old boils down to a holy book saying so.
Without providing physical proof that the world is 6000 years old, we just see someone twisting things to try to make them fit into a pre-existing belief.
With either claim, one must provide supporting data. Simply claiming that there might be some problems with the other idea doesnt bolster your own idea. (another logical flaw, while it may diminish the other idea, that does not boost yours).
|
All of the modern means of measuring have only been employed in the last number of decades. We don't know what the measurements of some things would have been with the same instruments and mindset as today, in 500 BC. Until we have measured for 1000 years, there can be no true confidence in a view that the universe is billions of years old. Most "scientists" themselves never master more than one section of their field, and most "scientists" are not scientists - they contribute nothing - but the equivalent of ignorant politicians, lousy mechanics, etc., in a position of accredation in a study they think they understand, but could never work out from scratch - and therefore do not know, but merely parrot an opinion about.
|
We are speaking apples and kiwis here. When cosmologists estimate the age universe, they are discussing its emergence into its current form. When we talk of the date of Creation, we are talking of the emergence of reality ex nihilo.
Projecting from its state now to a hypothetical antecedent that can explain this state entirely upon a closed system of physical law, we currently estimate 10-15 billion years.
The emergence of reality happened just now as you were observing it. Tradition tells us that the first time it happened was 5768 years ago.
There is no contradiction.
As for Bronze Age myths, yes, science has brought us much progress. We now have mobile phones and GPS. As far as explaining how reality came to be, however, science has not moved us one iota further ahead. It's simply not a question that fits into scientific analysis.
|
I think we are really speaking apples and apples here. I believe the Rabbi means that “reality”, or our most rudimentary intellectual understanding of the universe, could have emerged about 6,000 years ago. This is quite different from the overwhelming evidence we have today that supports the fact that the formation of the universe ex nihilo happened 13.7 billion years ago.
The still unknown milliseconds before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago is perplexing cosmologists but every year more progress is being made in the field of quantum mechanics in an effort to seek that answer.
Neanderthals, for example, that became extinct about 30,000 years ago probably did not possess the intellectual capacity to understand their existence the way homo sapiens do, much less contemplate it. Their reality was different than ours and scientifically did not produce anything more than basic hunting tools in 250,000 years.
Science has come a long way and our knowledge continues to accel
|
Not understanding what I wrote. Science is concerned with processes within reality--it has nothing to say about that outer shell of reality itself; Genesis is concerned with reality itself. For some explanation, please see Life2
In addition to this point and what is written there: The efforts of evolutionary cosmology, while impressive indeed, still leave gaping holes in our knowledge. None of these ideas can explain the mix of order, chaos and intelligence that comprises our universe. And rather than progressing, they really take us further and further from answering the real big question: What is the relationship between my consciousness and that of which I am conscious--i.e.: ontology and psychology? In our zeal to crunch numbers and solve puzzles we have left that most crucial question altogether behind.
|
I do understand what you wrote but did not get to finish my post – was cut off.
Our reality is based on our perception of the world that has everything to do with the neuronal processes in our brain and nothing more – it begins at birth and ceases at death. If these processes are altered such as in disease states or with psychoactive drugs, our true reality is then altered too. To think otherwise is absurd.
To state that there is an “outer shell” of reality or another reality beyond what our normal experiences are is (I agree with Adam above) a reflection of trying to distort factual evidence to fit a model that has no evidential backing. Also, to state that “science has not moved us one iota further ahead” in explaining how reality came to be is simply wrong. Substantial literature exists especially if one takes the time to study and understand it.
Your evolved brain and sense organs are truly your consciousness and that of which you are conscious - until death.
|
Are you saying that modern science is the product of something other than a human brain? If not, how is it privy to that which the human brain cannot digest? Aren't we speaking of empirical science--which means, interpreting the world that we observe?
Concerning your assertion that science discusses the emergence of reality, this is simply not true. Don't worry, none of us are ignorant of the discussions of cosmology and the first nanoseconds of the big bang. But all of this only deals with things that already are working within a set of rules to create more of itself. To paraphrase David Berlinski, when science asks "What made the universe come to be?" the answer is "something."
None of this answers Pascal's Big Question: "Why is there anything at all and not just nothing?"
|
Modern empirical science is the product of rational thought that is factual by continuous attempts at falsification. Time and the evolution of the human brain allow us to understand the universe the best that we can without having to construct assertions that cannot be proven.
Pascal’s question and David Berlinski’s reference to “something” will be answered one day as science continues to progress. In other words, we shouldn’t pretend to know things we don’t know in trying to explain what we don’t fully understand.
|
The first sentence of your last paragraph, you must admit, is a statement of pure faith. It is not a faith that I share. I doubt that most scientists would either.
Noam Chomsky put it this way: Evolutionary theory asserts that our minds evolved for survival on this planet. What on earth, he asks, does survival have to do with understanding the secrets of the cosmos? There is no reason to believe that the human mind should be capable at all of fathoming such things.
John Horgan, senior editor of Scientific American, dealt with much of this in his book, "The End of Science". A great read.
|
That the universe is finite is first recorded in the opening preamble verse of Genesis. It is followed by the premise of Entropy [form from formless]. That there was a universe maker is in the first four words ['In the beginning God'] - which deals with Creation from nothing - no tools or elements [forces, light, particles, heat, space, time, etc] existed at one time - thus Creator becomes the only option available.Ultimately, these are 100% scientific constants, while the universe emerging from a particle or Big Bang is not scientific because it is vested in an error - there were no particles, and a particle cannot become a complexity randomly. [non-science]. Genesis does not cntradict any bona fide science premises, and says the universe was created by a word ['SAID' LET THERE BE LIGHT]. All human prowess is also vested in the word - namely it is speech which sets humans above all life forms. The universe age may be estimated via good science imprints - it will not yield more.
|
Yes, thank you, it is a statement of faith in our progress toward greater scientific understanding – I am an optimist by nature.
Noam Chomsky, best known for his contributions to linguistics and not evolutionary science, might not have considered how difficult it is for a species to survive. Higher intellect, it is currently thought, is why some species (most notably Neanderthals that coexisted with Homo sapiens) become extinct.
I did not read John Horgan’s book but the Amazon ratings are less than pleasing.
|
These so-called scientists, while displaying brilliant jargon, make great basic errors. They begin the process post-beginning, namely describing minute details of a particle's process. But their original error remains unaccounted - namely the first particles emergence and ability to direct itself, and here they discard all science by proposing 'IT JUST HAPPENED' - or that it s NATURE. In actual fact, there is no such thing as 'Nature', nor does science allow a partile to conclude in complexity by itself - this negates science. Chomsky admitted that 'speech' KO's ToE and adaptation. The correct conclusion from a science view is, there is no alternative to Creationism or Monotheism - and here no proof is required: the sound premise says so.
|
"The traditional age of the world, as mapped by Biblical chronology (and according to traditional interpretations of that chronology) is 5767 years to this date. "
My understanding is that the 5767 is the age for modern speech endowed humans. Genesis does not give period datings for any of the life forms prior to speech humans [Adam], and the age of the universe does not belong in a biblical/spiritual document. Of note:
1. We cannot dispute speech is less than 6000 years old - the negating proof criteria being a simple 'NAME' more than 6000 being presented. A name is a mark of speech, and needs no writings: it can be recalled, just like a folk song or recipe. It is thus a remarkable the Torah dares a specific date, down to the year, which stands today: we do not have a name of a person, king, nation, city 6000 +.! Its a huge anomoly!
2. The Calendar of the Torah, & its 1000s of numbers, dates, lifespans and stats, all alligns with the 5767 exactly - a remarkable feat of maths
|
Adam's comment about bronze age myths was very interesting.
There is no doubt that all of Genesis was known to the Israelites before the written Torah. What is the divine addition in the written version? A turn of a phrase, a pun , defective spellings?
I agree with Rabbi Freeman and Clint Eastwood that a man has got to know his limitations, yet I don't see why this leads to the conclusion that primitive people had a special relationship to the divine that we do not.
|
"There is no doubt that all of Genesis was known to the Israelites before the written Torah. What is the divine addition in the written version? A turn of a phrase, a pun , defective spellings?"
Genesis contains 1000s of names,dates, generations and stats which could hardly be recalled, while there are no alphabetical 'books' before the Torah. How does one account for such a memory recall?
Re The age of the Uni. From a certain view, all parts of the universe should measure the same date, if their actual core sub-atomic material was examined. The universe today is the first point expanding - namely the centre expanded, and all the universe is contained in that centroid. There was no place for the universe to expand to, so it only expanded inside itself from the INSIDE - not from the OUTSIDE. When we date something, we are actually only dating accumulated layers which inturn drift from other areas: we are measuring the time taken for movement from one sector to another sector only.
|
Hi Joseph,
My comments on this were orthodox for a change.
The Talmud teaches us that the Patriarchs studied at the Shem and Eber Torah Academy (a name I've considered copyrighting). Jacob studied there for quite awhile (I thnk 18 years).
There are 10 generations between Adam and Noah and ten more until Abraham, so there aren't that many names and dates(?) -think you meant ages, to learn.
One of the Rebbes predecessors asks that all Jews (men I suppose) memorize at least the Torah (and something else) as a minimum. Therefore learning just Genesis would have been a snap for all the guys in ancient times who were many times smarter than we are.
Finally the Torah is also said to have been given before it was actually written.
Reagarding creation, even the mildly conservative evangelicals who Rabbi Freeman recommentds for Biblical history start with the Patriarchs. The Chabad position is that something real important (but obscure) happened about 6000 years ago.
|
It is not GOD that is leading men to make erroneous judgements with their sin-darkened minds. Those that meditate on what is good increase their mental capacity. I'm sure the owners of porno mags, for example, have no great store of thought readily available. Many enter the analysis of a thing with a dulled perception, lacking a true understanding of simple cause and effect.
If you were learning a language for the first time using modern scientific methods, you'd create half a fictitious one before you half learned the existing one.
|
Hi again Joseph,
I missed your previous explanation of the big event suggesting it was the origin of language.
The Wikipedia gives several possible dates, the most recent being 50,000 years ago which is (in my opinion) radical. 500,000 years is a more conservative guess, but still probably optimistically early.
The problems with the creation myth aren't so much in physics and geoology but with human development. Genisis doesn't deal with man's use of of fire, the domestication of animals, development of agriculture etc. To be fair, there is no question that God did teach early man Hebrew.
The most obvious explanation for this is that the guys that made it up, didn't know that that stuff had to happen.
The tower of Babel is actually one of my favorite myths, both for it's pointlessness and utter impossibility.
|
Cannot be copyrighted - its in the public domain.
"There are 10 generations between Adam and Noah and ten more until Abraham, so there aren't that many names and dates(?)"
Genesis contains *MILLIONS* of numerical & historical stats strewn across the words of its verses, spanning 2500 years, including DOBs, places, names, how far from Goshon to Pithon, aerial mapping topography, exacting deits, nations, kings, routes, etc - all alligning with the 10 C's at Sinai being a Saturday. A state of art PC would not perform this feat today.
"Torah is also said to have been given before it was actually written."
This applies generically to everything within creation, not just the Torah. Judaism is not based on belief only. Factual reality transcends.
"something real important (but obscure) happened about 6000 years ago."
Absolutely. This relates to speech - which is today a stumbling block for ToE and Adaptation. The Torah wins because we have not a *NAME* pre-6000!
|
"500,000 years is a more conservative guess, but still probably optimistically early."
Give us a NAME of any human just 6010 years old - like a king, holy man, nation, city, war, folk song, recipe - these do not require writings and can be recalled?
"Genisis doesn't deal with man's use of of fire,"
Nor of Hydrogen, not discovered then. The Torah is written for all genrations. Dust = sub-atomic particles, and a most appropriate term.
" the domestication of animals, "
All the animals in Noah's *possession* were domestic and followed him - thus tigers and crocs are not listed there.
"development of agriculture etc."
This faculty was introduced here. Amazing Harvest dates and different plant traits are listed for the first time.
"the guys that made it up,"
Impossible. The first alphabetical books, grammar, the 'day', oldest & most accurate calendar, evolution, dual gendered life origins, finite uni, etc - cannot be made up.
|
"The tower of Babel is actually one of my favorite myths, both for it's pointlessness and utter impossibility. "
The problem here is, the emergence of languages do not appear come from grunts & coos, and match only the Babel dates. 70 primal languages point to this region. The Indian language and writ is 90% same as Hebrew. Where then are the alphabetical books of nations older and far mightier?
You must put a provable alternative on the table. Myth = what has no evidences or imprints, and a clear alternative is at hand. One cannot dismiss a statute as a myth by inserting another myth.
Myths are not usually made with specific and provable dates of its space-time. Every NAME in the babel story is historically & scientifically authentic, and we know that a 5000 year name NEVER appears 4500 years ago. You fail to include the mysterious factors here - Genesis is indeed the most mysterious document in existence - there is nothing anywhere even near like it
|
1. He was a student and a colleague of the RaMBaN (12th century).
2. Was one of the foremost kabbalists of his time.
3. Investigated and authenticated the Zohar, which was then published in his lifetime.
4. Is often quoted in the Mussar classic, Reishit Hokhmah.
5. In his work Otzar HaHayyim, Yizhak of Acco writes: since the sabbatical cycles referred to in Shitat Sefer Temunah existed before Adam, we must measure in Divine years, not human years.
6. Therefore, Sefer Temunah is speaking of Divine years when it states that the world is 42,000 years old.
7. According to midrashic sources (t'hillim), a Divine day is 1,000 earth-years long.
8. A Divine year would therefore equal 365,250 earth years.
9. So, according to Yitzhak of Acco, the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 earth-years old.
10. That calculation comes out to 15.3 billion years.
There does not have to be a conflict between science and Torah on the age of the universe.
|
Have you read the what he writes in Otzar HaHayyim? You will see that he is not referring at all to the years before creation, but to the period of the seventh millennium.
The time of the previous sabbatical was not the same time that we measure beginning with creation. All of these worlds existed only in higher planes of reality that had nothing to do with our time. According to every kabbalist, including the Sefer Temunah, our material world began with the six days of creation as recorded in the Torah.
At any rate, I would like to see how you can reconcile any of this with the account of six days in Genesis--especially according to the Ramban.
This I would allow: it is possible that our world may appear (by certain measurements) to be 15.3 billion years old, as some sort of epiphenomenon of the higher spiritual worlds.
|
"he is not referring at all to the years before creation, but to the period of the seventh millennium."
There are no years before creation - which begins with DAY ONE. Nothing previous to this does exists now or before; even the heavens, listed as being created before the earth, is withing this universe, but not in a material form: the opening 4 words is 'IN THE BEGINNING GD' - no previous years or anything else is alluded to, specially not by the design of the Beth and the command to go forth only.
Also, other realms to this universe contradicts the opening verse the Uni is finite - that it had a beginning.
IMHO, the Hebrew calendar is associated with the advent of a speech endowed life form only - and this is vindicated: we have no 'NAME' - the mark of speech, prior to 6000. The time period before the Hebrew calendar is not th same on account of these are cosmic days, before the sun's lunimosity appeared, meaning these are epochs of time, not 24 hour earth days.
|
My guess is that the actual seven day week was developed much later than six thousand years ago, but a dubious argument might be made that it exists from this period.
The existence of the various cycles based on seven suggests the possibility that the seven day week was not the first seven based concept developed.
|
"My guess is that the actual seven day week was developed much later than six thousand years ago, but a dubious argument might be made that it exists from this period."
Nothing dubious here: the 7 day concept comes from Genesis and The 10 C's, whereby one day per seven is denoted for rest. The 'day' also comes from this source. These are vital implements of a true timepiece and calendar - the oldest and most accurate one being the Hebrew calendar.
If we examine the workings of the Hebrew calendar, which is based on the solar, lunar and earth movements - there is no other conclusion that the earth is a moving, sphearical body [non-flat; non-stationary]. Faculties of science, such as cosmology [the Uni is finite and ste stars unaccountable], astronomy [stars are signs]and astrology [omens] come from Genesis.
|
I referred to a source discussing the parsha Behar in conjunction with the theories of Yitchak of Acco, which was removed. In this case, the sages are disturbed with (among other things) by the Messianic era being only 1000 years which seems inadequate for the 6000 years of aggravation.
Conceptually, these larger cycles based on 7 may be more important than the actual length fof the week. The establishment of a 7 day week could have happenned 6000 years ago without violating any secular theories too badly. My comment about it being dubious is that this doesn't jive with current secular thinking on this topic where other cultures had different week lengths, etc.
The significance of the number 7 may have been derived from the 7 visible planets.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, I mainly wanted to comment on the Yitchak of Acco issue.
|
'The significance of the number 7 may have been derived from the 7 visible planets.'
Relative to the writing's dating, I doubt even planets were known of by humanity, or that they rotated. Genesis is the world's most mysterious document, ushering such concepts as the Uni is finite, entropy, evolution and the dual-gendered origin of all life, presented in the first alphabetical 'books' - well before a host of older and mightier nations. Its an anomoly.
Re. The 1000 Messianic era - this may refer to a different measure of time, as per the psalms [1 year = 10K]. also, good ties never exceed bad times - because they are more lasting [trevails are soon forgotten]. The Torah has a total command of time, with its oldest and most accurate Calendar, one which signifies the world is not flat.
BTW, no need to apologise - the posts don't indicate the poster, and easily mistaken.
|
Genesis is not mysterious at all, it was translated from Bereishit in its most mundane version. I say this because in Hebrew, read as it was supposedly written, it is even more mysterious. It's like looking at some mathematical equation that is more advanced at describing invisible concepts than our own.
My research on it led me to the human brain as it is like a map of how it works, literally. SO
we could be looking at a process of creation here that repeats in various forms in seven cycles with the universe as the mother cycle. But not just a cycle but a kind of slowing down of light into matter, a formation so to speak, that happens in seven steps forming all sorts of
well, consciousness generating life that expands consciousness.
The simplest explanation would be it was written by G-d with His own finger.
|
'The simplest explanation would be it was written by G-d with His own finger'
This only affirms it is a mysterious doc, be it in hebrew or english. It does not indicate ancient Hebrews could have put this down, before even mightier and older nations. The family tree listing of ancient names, with dob and dods, dates and places - vindicated as contemporary and authentic - is a feat not possible even today, using a super PC. Equally, it is also legitimate to acknowledge how ubsurd it is to believe that this is not man made. This ubsurdity, with the total lack of counter evidence to disprove this ubsurdity - makes it the most mysterious document in existence. Monotheism and Creationism, which have no alternatives, are the two highest thoughts in the universe.
|
There are various definitions of visible planets, but in the weekly context of seven, the sun and moon are included.plus 5 planets.
The significance of this for the week is discussed in the Sefer Yetzirah which some attribute to Abraham.
The earliest plausible historical evidence for a 7 day week is from about 2350 BCE where Sargon I instituted it in Ur and Sumeria.
This is uncomfortably close to the flood which is why some Yoshkiologists push creation back about 4000 years.
I'm not aware of Shabbat or a practical concept of a week mentioned before Exodus in the Bible.
|
Though polytheism and evolutionary science ended up supporting monotheism and creationism. "Its all part of the plan" as joker puts it.
The point is, without the mystery there will be no quest, no path to discovery. the waves between knowing and not knowing though seemingly merely a play of philosophy or poetry is a scientific fact in consciousness and water...all symbolized by the Hebrew letter MEM or the letter M, that wavy letter -- the same letter that represents chaos. Without chaos, there can be no Light. Without mystery, no knowledge. This poetic conclusion repeats inself in "Genesis" (Bereishit) over and over
in different symbolic tunes and melodies but saying the same thing. All of creation is an interplay of the male, the female and the space in between.
|
While the 7 day creation is described in Bereshit, the actual commandment on Shabbat is in Yitro. This recalls Rashi's famous question about the Torah not starting with the first commandment which is sanctifying the new moon.
Rabbi Yitzhak of Acco, is commenting on Behar and expounding upon Rabbis Ibn Ezra and Ramban.
This "Sabbatical Cycles" as physical worlds theory was eventually disputed by the Ari and lost popularity with Kabbalists. The Ari however is not exactly a perfect character and his teachings are at least partially responsible for the Sabbatean heresy. In my opinion, the major contribution of the Besht was resolving this problem and probably allowing Judaism to survive.
The theory has become more popular within the last 150 years notably by Rabbis Yisrael Lipschitz of Danzig, and A.I. Kook. The main technical issue is what the destruction of these prior universes means exactly.
Quite a fascinating subject, no matter what one believes.
|
"I'm not aware of Shabbat or a practical concept of a week mentioned before Exodus in the Bible. "
Genesis 2/2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
|
"The main technical issue is what the destruction of these prior universes means exactly"
The notion of other realms, other than this creation, contradicts Gen 1/1, which posits the universe [creation] is 'Finite' [there was a BEGINNING]. This means nothing else once existed, except the creator [First 4 words: 'IN THE BIGINNING GD'].
The term Heaven, which predated the earth, is accounted as factored in the one creation. There is nothing except the Creator before the Beth - and all exits from the Beth are barred except the GO FORTH forward direction of this square designed alphabet.
The premise of FINITE was inroduced in Genesis, and the Torah also gives the only definition of what constitutes INFINITY - namely 'CHANGE' - whatever changes is less transcendent that that which changes it. Thus:
'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'.
The notion of other realms, outside that of this one, also contradicts the notion of Ex Nehilo - something from nothing, renedering it superfluos
|
The theory that the earth is less than 6000 years ago and that Bereshit and Noach are literally true is unquestionably an orthodox Jewish belief.
It should be pointed out that there are a significant number of Orthodox authorities who question this. If we include conservative Jews, there is no doubt that a significant majority of observant Jews do not accept this literal interpretation as true.
It is not acceptable or correct to suggest that scholars who believe this way have a mistaken understanding of the Torah. In fact, a vast majority of the orthodox believe that following Halakha is more important than a specific belief.
Personally, I have a problem with the Chabad position which is allied to reactionary christan sects to support it's position. At some point these creationist arguments can become offensive, not so much because of the outrageous nature of the claims (e.g. the examples in footnote 3 are all wrong) but because christian propaganda is being used.
|
'The theory that the earth is less than 6000 years ago and that Noach are literally true .'
Nowhere does Genesis say the age of the earth. The 6000 refers only to the advent of speech endowed humans - and this is amazingly vindicated today. No one yet has a 'NAME' of a human older 6000, nor is there any history per se of this.
No name, king, war, nation, diety, folksong or even a food recipe pre-6000; these do not require writings and can be recalled by oral tranmission. The Hebrew calendar, the oldest & most accurate one, begins with Adam - the first speech endowed human; the previous creational days are cosmic days - epochs of time, before the advent of the sun's luminosity [the texts!].
Noah is defintely and indusputably true: the region was always condusive to floods; this event has cross-nation evidential writings. Corrct comprehension of texts will show this flood referred to the 'then known' world, and the animals listed are limited to 'Noah's household & possessions
|
It seems this Torah and Science section is designed to reassure Jews who were brought up on a literal biblical interpretation who are confused by so called scientific claims.
After some research, the views expressed here are Haredi, which is often called ultra-orthodox but that term is offensive to some.
Rabbi Marc Shapiro, writing in 1994, commented on mainstream orthodox intellectual understanding of Bereshit and Noach.
There is an Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) which is over half orthodox that seems to be a more rational place to study these issues.
While the overall contribution of Chabad to modern Judaism is tremendous, there are elements of its belief system that are shocking from a modern orthodox perspective.
|
but it doesn't explain findings like these; "According to the "Out of Africa" theory, modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved in East Africa and then spread out across the globe about 70,000 years ago, replacing earlier, or archaic, human populations, such as the Neanderthals, with very little, if any, interbreeding."
I am absolutely determined to find the study of Jewish thought to be the most important decisiont hat I make in my life, however I am finding it so difficult when I keep crashing in to these major stumberling blocks. Can someone please help me out here!
|
If that refers to speech endowed humans - their population should be 6 Trillion today. Also, there would still be an anomoly relating to mental prowess ratios. While the scientific research sounds reasonable, the vital marks on the ground contradict it in favour of Genesis: its like saying in 6000 years we are able to produce 6 Billion cars - but cars have been produced for 70K years - and they took 69.8K years to be seen - because no one was around for 54K years who were like us in any recognisable form whatsoever. IMHO, if no recallable 'name' pre-6000 [a most reasonable ask!], then no speech endowed human brains existed. The foremost scientists agree that speech poses the greatest difficult to ToE, specially its adaptation premise, which appears to have occured with only 1 life form to the ratio of 1: all others, while being the most recent entry in the life form thread. Adaptation is time related, and speech is the single most powerful tool in the universe. What happened here!?
|
It's nice to see you in a more familial forum Joseph.
Even though I am the anthroplogy major in the family, my wife told me yesterday that theNeanderthal's jaw was too heavy for speech. Needless to say I thought of you.
She also claimed that there was no breeding betwen Neanderthal and Cro Magnon man, which is consistent with Joanna's comment.
My knowledge gained 40 years ago seems to be getting long in the tooth.
My suggestion is that a more modern orthodox view that accepts the consensus views of science makes sense.
The Association for Jewish Studies is one organization which promotes this viewpoint, and has many distinguished Jewish scholars.
The Torah and Jewish history is just as rich, attractive and moving (more so in my opinion) from a secular, rational perspective compared to Haredi fundamentalism.
|
The matter is simple and not related to Heredi, Chabad or whatever, nor to the jawbone of an ass. Please give me a NAME pre-6000? Just one - just 1 year pre will do - if this is not too much to ask. I refuse to believe in co-incidences the Hebrew calendar could be so bold to infer such a risk prone statement - and by a mytserious fluke be vindicated to the day and year. The other impacting issues are also outside those you mention: how about population and mental measurement grads - what happened here - did none of the trillions of life forms not see the power of speech as opposed communications? IOW, do you accept the pop grads of some 6B speech endowed humans accounted for in 6000 years - does it also apply to 100s of 1000s of years equally?
I remind, that a name does not require writings - it is orally recalable same as a folk song, recipe or deity.
Listen to your wife, as was the greatest Prophet told:
'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'
Cheers
|
Imagine a mind that has no face, how will it describe itself when you cannot see it. It does not have a face. So you get all sorts of descriptions and none of them will adequately tell you what it is.
G-d has been trying to make us understand but he can only do it in the context of our own understanding.
We know too little, still too little to dismiss anything as false. We cannot stop questioning the Torah because all the questioning has only led us back to understanding it more.
|
Nothing compares with this mysterious document - not even in its majestic literally sweep. We can easily take its sublime expressionisms for granted, forgetting these are primal and original. I refer to such parables as:
LET THERE BE LIGHT - which can have multiple applications; LAND OF MILK AND HONEY - a hypnotic line for desert wonderers,;MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM - is this in the 3rd or 4th person; is it a scientific constant all was created in a duality? SON OF MAN - how can any human writer put himself in such a transcendent premise, and assume himself higher than man - when there is no higher life form? I AM THAT I AM - a most sobering declaration; I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE - why is this in the reverse order!? I AM - why is this in the ancient Egyptian and the only two words not in Hebrew? KNOW FOR A SURETY THY SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE - how can a seed as yet not born, nor yet able to sin, consider this? What better opening than 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' ?
|
Sorry, no mystery here. The verbiage is written as the author(s) intended. Interpretation and philosophizing is what purports to make it "mysterious": the same can be said for Crime and Punishment.
|
Crime and punishment is not talking about the first time, in the first time and for the first time. IOW, its not ex nehilo or original. Crime and punishment is a brilliant work - but one can imagine writing it on a good day. Can one imagine writing for the first time the universe has a beginning, introduce the 'day' and the 'week', or list the correct order of evolutionary 'kinds' - 1000s of years before Einstein and Darwin - and so much more poetically.
|
Personally, I prefer an Austin Powers analogy to Dostoevsky, but perhaps you'd have the same objections.
I think though, creation ex nihilo is more of a talmudic period interpretation and probably not even originally Jewish. Otherwise we wouldn't be saying it in Latin.
I suspect this discussion isn't exactly pushing Joanna into the Chasidic camp.
To expand on Cecilia's comment, Just because I have no idea what's going on, doesn't mean a rabbi does.
|
we all contribute to the totality of knowledge. all of us care enough to struggle to unify our divergent opinions. The point is we perceive a unity, though some areas of the puzzle don't quite fit right.
My point is if you've made up your mind about what you know and don't care to know what you don't, you're already a dendrite that disconnected to its axon, you'll shrivel up and never light up a synaptic spark ever again. they call this process "forgetting" in terms of experience.
nobody is stupid here, as you probably can tell. At least I learned from everybody here, particularly Rabbi Freeman's article. (as you probably can tell, I am a big fan)
|
Sorry, I couldn't resist playing with your statement
"We know too little... to dismiss anything as false"
This is a defect in my character, sometimes I annoy people on purpose but in this case it was more accidental than intentional.
Rabbi Freeman has also admonished me to be more open minded.
Frankly though, I find this ironic. Although my world is secular, I spend a considerable amount of time on religious study, etc. On the other hand, I sense the ultra orthodox avoid confrontations with the secular world "of being inside a fence" as it were.
I think its wonderful to live a devout orthodox Jewish life, but this criticism strikes me as similar to the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Allocate it to the Latin if you like. I got it from the opening verse in Genesis - the uni is finite - my source for ex nehilo. Maybe those Latinos got it from the Greeks from the Septuagint - so they deserve merit for taking on board a bright idea; they had a bigger sword too. Those latinos were also big time usurpers, declaring all roads lead to Romano Square - all else is transcended - oops I mean fullfilled. They rejected there is wisdom and rightious in all nations [Talmud]; they rejected all humanity was equally blessed in Genesis 1/1 before any religion yet emerged - they garbage bagged a babe they thought was not born handsome enough. They even changed being a light unto others [= via example only], and preferred the rake and sword. I wonder how Steve Martin would put it - but Austin is clearly loosing his powers here. How do you tell someone correcting them = your really on their side too? I'm no Pax Romanoist - they want to erect a new golf course on soccer-sized Israel. Why?
|
I knew you'd latch onto the Latin, we could probably exchange identities.
I found an excellent essay on this subject; The History of Creation Ex-nihilo Within Jewish Thought by Rabbi Rafael Salber.
There is discussion in the Talmud on both sides of this issue. Ex-nihilo is almost universally accepted amongst Jews today, but one could argue that this didn't happen until after 500 CE.
Genesis is unclear on ex-Nihilo. Even the commentators aren't in unanimous aggreement..
|
Joseph, And I don't think its a deficit in your character. I always say I'd like to be less mean, but that's where my wit comes from and I like being funny.
Bereishit is not Genesis. Two layers of information was taken away from its context when it was translated into Genesis. In Bereishit, the letters which are also ideograms will explain what "ex-nihilo" means conceptually, where it could be observed as true in variety of realities. Hebrew is focused on communicating relationships instead of things.
The source is Bereishit. The language is Hebrew. This is where the article is based on. Hebrew and English versions are not like apples and oranges. They are more like a person and a picture of the person. Not quite the same thing.
So really, all the squabbling about creation "ex-nihilo" is really going to be futile. The Hebrew version explains how each idea might look, how it certainly behaves and its conceptual position in relation to everything else (numerical value)
|
This concept is not just impossible to conceptualise - it is also impossible to put in words. Try it. Once you talk about the something, which came from nothing - your already lost: what is something - where was it sitting when it became nothing? - how can you have a beginning in the first place [what place?] if it wasn't there in the non-beginning? What do you mean by IT, WASN'T THERE, etc?
The difficulty of expressing this adequately is not a fault of Genesis/Bereshit, but an affirmation why it is correct to be inadequate. The mind cannt visualise what is outside reality and corporeality - its a question of brain wirings, and the good advocation the 'A' [Alef] is barred, with the consolation all from B to Z is given us. We are never satisfied [of course] with this, and look only to the 'A' - the forbidden fruit and Eve issue, and why man climbs mountain tops to grasp 'NOTHING'. Infinity cannot be contained in finity - and this extends to grammar too. Its very cruel.
|
Has anyone detected humor in this manual of the universe and earth? I found definitive sarcastic wit in places. E.g. 'AND IS ISRAEL WAS ENTANGLED IN THE LAND'. This verse appears after Israel was trapped in a cul de sac, with the sea in front and Egypt's army charging. It begs the retort, OH REALLY - YOU THINK! The other example is the term 'I AM' in the 10 Cs, which appears in ancient Egyptian ; appararenty the Pharoah, who spoke no Hebrew, claimed he was divine. Nice. There is no greater power than WORDS. If the universe is finite, there was once no tools and elements to make one - and no space to place it in - except the WORD? So the Lord 'SAID' let there be light. But 'SAID' was not possible - unless the 'word' always existed - can you say WORD without the word already existent?
|
I agree that there are instances of humor in Torah. There are countless puns. The haha funny stories are not so easy for us to see because of the time distance. These don't seem to be talked about much by the sages and the ultra orthodox, perhaps because they imply a human writer, and a writing date of at least the kingdoms period.
My favorite in this genre is Rachel and the Terafim. The Terafim seems to have been a common household fetish and apparently was a severed human head or body of a sacrificed infant. The lips would move and whisper predictions with a debatable degree of accuracy.
Rachel sitting on the Terafim conjures an image of the Terafim being unable to speak and reveal its location to Lavan.
An R rated story, but amusing if your tastes run that way. Of coiurse, one could also uncover a more serious interpretation with this line of thought..
The theme is replayed in Joseph framing Benjamin with the wine goblet.
|
Cecilia,
Believe it or not, I typed Bereishit and decided to change it to Genesis.
I've never seen this idea before, but it seems to be Kosher. I noticed you had also mentioned this in a posting 11/5.
Ramban says the pre patriarchical parts of the Torah are incomprehesible to almost everyone and I'm afraid that includes me.
My questions are, do you feel this was written by someone other than Moshe. Do you have an opinion on the introduction of the Hebrew letters we know, that were apparently inttoduced around the time of the first exile? If the text predates modern Hebrew Script would the structure be the same? I've been curious about this in regard to the curly ques in the modern Torah letters that the sages say Rabbi Akiva could interpret.
BTW, here's a little Kabbalah / Rabbi Freeman riddle, which I had been puzzling over but think I have solved.
Why doesn't Rabbi Freeman like Yitchak of Acco?
|
That Terafim story appears more a pointer to contemporary authenticity than man made; it contrasts sharply with the later descriptions against magic and sorcery, indicating the change after the Torah was given. We know that the Hebrews were highly influenced with occultism upto their Egptian sujourn. That this is cast away post-Torah indicates time authenticity: why would the writer abandon it later? I find many scholars make the same errors - they conclude periphearily if it suits their inclination, while avoiding the greater factor of historical mirror work embedded in this writings. Was any research done to examine the terafim with that period? - did they point out those Hebrew names were critically limited to that exacting space-time? While we pursue truths, beware the slight of hand casino scholars.
|
David's wife. Michal covered his escape from Saul in Samuel 19 by going to bed with their Terafim to fool the guards.
Are you saying that incident happened before the Torah was written?
Congratualtions, you've reached the first plateau.
|
Sure, the hebrews held superstitions, maybe also mild occultisms in some parts today [sacrificing chickens to cleanse sins and bad luck]. My point was limited to the reporting's authenticity - this is markedly different from many other scriptures. It antithises doctoring. The terafim factor gives credence to a 4000 year story of Canaanite Hebrews - when no artifacts, relics and writings are available of ths period. Contrastingly, even the 1800 year Gospels habours what appears totally ficticious reports of Judea and Judean Jews, and unpardonably does not contain the sacrifice of a Million Jews upholding their faith against Rome - a Holocaust right in their midst. That's like the NY Times not reporting 9/11 on 10/11. Both the Torah and the Gospels are astonishing - in very different ways. The first of all moral/ethical commandments refers to 'HONESTY' [3rd C] - even before love and beief: for what merit in these w/o honesty?
|
I had to study paleo-Hebrew to finally get what Rabbi Freeman is saying. Just google it and you'll find texts that are not Jewish about the pre-Ezra letters. I also looked into some Egyptian Heiroglyphics and the phonetic values. If you read Bereishit in pictograph form, the idea that the universe came from nothing will no longer be in discussion.
In the beginning is actually IN BEGINNING.
Heaven and earth is :
The "do" (kinetic or active) chaos ( energy) and the "eat" (consummeable or potential) chaos (energy) strong bind with the first strong need (vacuum)
In another author's book, ELOHIM was translated as "the Powers" in pictograph.
This book is not a spiritual book (or not just), it's an explanation and not just to explain but to instruct.
If you've ever studied basic physics.
read the above line describing what G-d first created . - and + in a vacuum, which is a path.
That is how you create light, and that is also the description of a neuron's dendrite and axon meeting
|
...in a synaptic gap.
I've read the Chassidic works of the Rebbe, and he confirms a lot of things I thought it meant. I don't know if Rabbi Freeman reads in Paleo hebrew but I suspect, he doesn't need to, he is familiar with the works of the Rebbe and the Rebbe, gets it. You just have to be well versed in the symbology. (such as water is consciousness and is also chaos and they all are represented by MEM, that wavy letter.) The thing is the more I read the Torah, the more I understand my physics and neuroscience and vice versa. I should know more but I spend too much time doing this which is you know a bit of an ego thing if you ask me. But if serves a purpose.
|
I was aware that the writing had changed but completely unaware of anything else. This is very important stuff.
Regarding the venue, I'm not sure it is inappropriate. I've learned several life changing things from this site.
It's inspired me to learn more about Judaism and our history. This is essentially a search for truth wherever it might lead. Perhaps these consequences are what the Rebbe intended.
BTW, I sensed some animosity in Rabbi Freeman's response about Yitchak of Acco, but thought it was probably my imagination and didn't research it. But then I saw a discussion in a book by Gershom Scholem.
This is also easy to google. It turns out he wrote that DeLeon wrote the Zohar and made it pseudepigraphical to make more money from it. The make more money part is offensive even to me (and Scholem). Rabbi Freeman probably has a problem with the first part also.
Thanks again, I'm looking forward to learning more about this.
|
There is a pivotal 'AND' which is more impacting:
'I SHALL JUDGE ISRAEL - *AND* - THE NATIONS'.
The seeking of extra hidden meanings is not required in a text which already says what occured, and is self-fullfilled. The history of Israel is not a negative one: she exists - many do not. Now, the *AND* needs attending to. The Nations must hold up a mirror and ask themselves to examine their crimes and sins - because longsuffering has a use-by date. Whoever called a deathly 3-state in Palestine as a 2-state - must be deemed of poor math and history - or worse. Truth is its a 3-state:
'IT WILL BE A HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - A ciger chomping Churchill.
Whoever condoned carving off 80% of a tiny land as a 'COMPROMISE' - cannot understand what they read. The nations must examine this carefully:
'I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS'
Who needs a golf course on soccer-sized Israel?
|
It is not hidden meanings when it's right there. The thing is, do we as people who are living 3000 years later know what it really means when it has been "improved" and translated so many times.
The true meaning of the Torah is only "Hidden" to those who are ignorant. That means all of us-- and so it is our business to study it.
"The seeking of extra hidden meanings is not required in a text which already says what occured, and is self-fullfilled."--do you know what occurred? `What exactly occurred in Bereshit?
The world was created, Arabs included. If you think that the promised land is JUST an actual piece of land, then you rob yourself of a place that is bigger than that. The victory of the Jewish people reaches a land more vast than Jerusalem. It has reached me in a Buddhist Temple, in St. Peter's Cathedral, in the ex-communist streets of Prague and now in ex-9/11 NYC.
The Torah is larger than your 21st century war. It is about things larger than your brain...and mine.
|
I love this article but sometimes it has dragged on. G-d bless Rabbi Freeman.
Your work is not designed to go quietly!
|
All honest humans know the problem with the Arabs is not land - this is in fact the only thing the Arabs don't need and the Jews have not got - the reason this is demanded. Jews have never stolen another's land - ever. Honest Arabs should give land to the Jews - its the moral and Gdlu thing to do. Honesty requires us not to have a blank resume when it comes to examining those who want to destroy Israel using the Pretend Palestinian placebo. Those who say YES to a 3-state today - will not say NO to a 4-state tomorrow - till there is none. This has precedence. Check your resumes now - is one side blank?
|
I fail to see the connection between How Old is the Universe according to Berieshit has anything to do with the Arabs (who are not by the way, all Palestinians--I met some from Qatar, nice people, they showed me the pleasures of eating on the floor with my hands)
The Torah is ageless. It is about you, IamJoseph. It is about the Not-I that you persistently remove from your Iam, creating duality. The knowledge of the Torah then, is the same knowledge it is imparting now. It is a knowledge of the Self. It is Ysrael, the presence of G-d on earth. It is a story of G-d's relationship with the Jewish people, as well as the story of the Mind's relationship with the body. It is about the Groom and His bride and the space in between. It is about the Universe reaching out to the darkness occupying it and making it into us.
Which in plain language means, hey man. You are who you hate. So love instead. You are that which you hate and love.
There is only one G-d.
|
“Why doesn't Rabbi Freeman like Yitchak of Acco?”
(In short due to space constraints).
Since R’ Yitzchak of Acco always pops up in these types’ discussions…If you would see what he writes inside , you would see that what he writes is based on the concept of their being cycles of years, ‘Shimtos’ – Sabbatical Years- preceding the creation of this world.
The L. Rebbe answered in regards to this that various Kabalist wrote about there being sabbatical cycles of years, each sabbatical consisting of at least 7 thousand years and us being in the second or fifth sabbatical. The Rebbe writes (see Lekutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 176) that although we find differences of opinion about this before the time of the Arizal, once the Arizal came and established that these ‘sabbatical years’ that preceded this world are only meant in the spiritual sense, but there were NO physical worlds before this one, this then becomes the established accepted opinion by all Kabalist, like all other kabalistic matters.
|
This is very useful. Personally, I don't particularly accept the Shmittot concept, but it does have the advantage of not giving the universe an absurdly young age.
I learned only recently that Rabbi Ishmael's 13 rules of Exegesis of the Torah is also applied to the Talmud and reputable medeival commentators. I think you are implying that these rules also apply to Kabbalah.
This status seems dependent on the Zohar being written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the 2nd century CE, a position which can charitably be called dubious.
Yitchak's position on the Zohar certainly explains kabbalistic animosity toward him.
I've previously mentioned that the Arizal is hardly a super exalted figure if only because of his partial responsibility for the Sabbatian heresy which almost resulted in the destruction of Judaism.
The messianic era has been calculated by our sages to start at many different times. The 6000 year idea has the merit of not having happened yet
|
You’re welcome. It’s a matter of which perspective one is coming from. Is one trying to reconcile Torah with Science or is it science with Torah? (I don’t mean this in the ‘science is bonk’ sense).
R’ Ishmael's 13 rules of Exegesis, most defiantly do NOT apply to the Talmud. What I meant was the concept that once something becomes the accepted opinion, then that is the established ‘Halacha.’ I am saying that just like this applies to Halacha, so too does it apply to Kabala.
As for R’ Yitzchak Acco position on the authorship of the Zohar, while he is from the first to have investigated it, it is not at all clear what his final position was, since his conclusion is missing from the account given in the Sefer Hayuchsin.
There is no animosity towards him amongst the Kabalist. And he is quoted by various kabalist including in the notable Sefer Reishis Chachama. Nobody has any animosity towards Beis Shamai, even if the final Halacha does not follow them. Ill leave the Arizal for now.
|
Thank you, guys! I'm amazoning after this.
|
I've had great difficulty understanding this issue (Halacha, accepted opinion, etc).
Regarding the Talmud and commentaries, there are many opposite opinions. For example, Deuteronomy 21:12 on beuatiful captive women... Rashi says "veasta et-tziparneha" means let her nails grow, whereas Ramban says it means cut her nails. Literally, I think this means "do her nails" so I'd vote for Ramban.
My understanding is that it is incorrect to say that Rashi is wrong, and it's been explained to me that one should look for another opinion that reconciles the two (from R. Ishmael).
This is what I meant when referring to the Talmud and commentators.
Moreover this is #221 of the 248 positive commandments according to Rambam, where there appears to be opposite advice regarding an important element.
No doubt my confusion over this technical issue will seem simple minded or childish to many readers, but it seems critical to understanding the orthodox position.
|
While it is true that it is best to seek a way to reconcile to seemingly opposing opinions, this does not have to do with R' Yishmael 13 rules of Exegesis which only apply to the written Torah. Much of the oral Torah is about using the rules of exegesis to extrapolate the meaning of the written Torah. Perhaps the articles linked to here later will help clarify this issue as well.
As to your question about different opinions the Torah, fortunately it’s a good question which has been asked by many. I say fortunately, since because of this, there seems to be quite a few articles on Chabad.org addressing this question. I’ll try and post some links to a couple of those articles (Sorry, I only skimmed through them).
Hmm’ apparently one cannot post links here, so here are the titles of the articles, using the search feature you should be able to find these articles:
"The Murky Truth About Truth"
"Is It Really the Torah, Or Is It Just the Rabbis?"
Hope this helps.
|
""The Murky Truth About Truth""
The way out is that TRUTHFULNESS transcends TRUTH. The later is subjective and elusive, and in fact barred - while the former is the only pathway for relative truth. The 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty [in contracts and vows] - not in a demand for truth. This also aligns with the law which says after all due diligence and still a culprit is not found - then leave the truth to the Lord - no need for revenge here, when truth is not discernable - truth will find its own path where truthfulness was applied.
NO MAN SHALL see [KNOW] 'ME' - the 'ME' refers to Truth.
|
Thanks once more.
I found some information searching for Halachic authority, and Kabbalah authority. I think I've suppressed this stuff because it disturbs me for some reason.
I'll read the articles you suggested Yehuda. The titles seem appropriate.
Kabbalah, especially Luianism, seems to have a higher status in Chabad than the more maintstream branches of Judaism.
I also read this on Wikipedia "Historians have noted that most claims for the authority of Kabbalah involve an argument of the antiquity of authority (see, e.g., Joseph Dan's discussion in his Circle of the Unique Cherub). As a result, virtually all works pseudepigraphically claim, or are ascribed, ancient authorship."
This suggests that an attempt to descredit the claimed antiquity may be seen as an heretical attack.
Therefore I'm not sure my initial suggestion of some animosity over Yitchak's claims has been disproved, although imagining our leaders as saintly is pleasant.
|
I think it does an injustice to use Milton as a prop for claiming that a Young Universe can be supported by science. By looking him up on Wikipedia, you can see that Richard Milton's writings have been classified as pseudoscience by any serious scientist, and using them to proclaim the veracity of the Torah will just raise more questions than answers.
There has been much material published by many writers who use both commonly accepted scientific knowledge and prominent Rabbinic sources that there is NO conflict between a universe billions of years old, and the Torah's description of Creation.
As an example, try Rabbi Natan Slifkin's works at his website ZooTorah.org
|
Two versions are given, depending which group is involved.
1 is that the universe's age is 6000 and all things appeared matured, but made to look older.
2 is that speech, and thereby history, is 6000 [because the creation days are not included in the calendar, and because these are cosmic pre-luminsity epochs of time - the 4th day sgnifies this luminosity's appearance and thus these are not 24-hour days. The latter is not in contradiction with sceince: we have no history per se or even a human's 'NAME' pre-6000. The confusion and irresolvable status is also correct: this issue refers to origins, and thus falls into the first missing, unknown alphabet in Genesis' opening verse, and 'NO MAN SHALL SEE/KNOW ME AND LIVE'. The not knowing is vindicated with scence and all religions: we have no alternative, scientific or otherwise, to Creation'ism and Monotheism - based on a finite universe. And Genesis, IMHO, is clearly based on a finite realm, which had a 'BEGINNING.
|
Sadly, the anti-creationists terrorize Wikipedia, with pitbull-like tenacity, damning the reputation of anyone who dares disagree with the standard dogma of evolution and bullying those who attempt to interfere with their mandate. It's a long standing issue, and one which serves to tarnish the reputation of what is mostly otherwise a great service.
I think you can see this immediately by the flagrantly biased opening to the entry on Milton there. If you want more evidence, look at the discussion.
Others have been put through far worse at Wikipedia.
|
I agree with David IIlan. Milton's book is filled with outdated statements and he clearly does not understand current biology, cosmology and paleontology.
Substantial evidence exists that our universe is 14.5 billion years old.
Better evidence than naively believing in a 6,000 year old one that only made logical sense thousands of years ago when the Torah was written and continues to do so for those who lack a background in science.
Science continues to bring us much knowledge that was not known in the Iron age of civilization. Most believed the Earth was flat too... today we are more educated.
|
Sadly the Ultra Orthodox terrorize other Jews with pit bull like tenacity, damning the reputation of any rabbi who dares disagree with the standard dogma of a literal interpretation of genesis and buillying those who attempt to interfere with their mandate. It's a long standing issue, and one which serves to tarnish the reputation of what is mostly otherwise a great religion.
One can see this immediately by going into the given website and reviewing the nastiness of the campaign against this.
Others have been put through far worse by the Ultra Orthodox.
|
I agree Wikipedia is often times used to discredit and villify ideas and individuals. Anyone can make a contributiion, right or wrong, and should NOT be used as a basis for rational inquiry.
The fact still remains that Richard Milton's ideas are inaccurate. For example, he believes in iridology which, after having examined about 100,000 eyes myself, serves only to feed polemic discourse.
|
A while after writing this, I wrote Life2. As I ponder the issue more, it becomes clear to me that Moses and the geologist are talking about two entirely different worlds. The world that Moses tells us about exists in G-d's mind and begins again at each moment. The point he has to make is that it actually has a story, and the story needs to begin a few thousand years ago.
The world the geologist is investigating is just dumb matter that is here because it is here. He wants the earth to explain itself, without resorting to anything transcendent of that dumb matter.
These are two entirely different paradigms. Please read the linked essay for further thought.
|
The 6000 only refers to the history of speech endowed life forms, and this is fully vindicated today: proven by the oldest active and most accurate Hebrew calendar not including the creational days of ch.1., which are not 24-hour days but epochs of time. The Torah is correct: we have no history per se, or a 'NAME' of a human pre-6000. The battle of Creationism VS Evolution is temporarilly lost because of unintential but eronous Christian interpretations of the Hebrew, and this has been exploited to the hilt by anti-creationists. I challenge anyone to give an alternative to Creationism & Monotheism - from a scientific or impirical premise. Also, I challenge anyone to produce a name - the mark of speech, pre-6000: this does not depend on writings and is recallable by memory, as with folk songs, dieties, recipes and culture traits.
|
Dear Sir /Madam,Regards to the comment that (the creational days of ch.1 of Genesis., which are not 24-hour days but epochs of time) in this comment below, How can these be epochs of time and not 24 hour days when first of all each day had an evening and a morning, and secondly if they were epochs of time how did the flora survive to the next epoch without the bees and insects and sunlight? the flora would have had to wait one epoch for the sunlight and two epochs for insect fertilization. ofcourse it depends how long these supposed epochs were
----------------------------------------
The 6000 only refers to the history of speech endowed life forms, and this is fully vindicated today: proven by the oldest active and most accurate Hebrew calendar not including the creational days of ch.1., which are not 24-hour days but epochs of time.
|
When read carefully, Genesis says first the entire construct of life forms were created - but they were not animated or 'LIVING'. Later, in ch 2, when the rain cycles, etc began, life was ignited with the force of a breath in the nostrils and they became LIVING souls. This is how all things operate: a car does not move even when wholly completed - it has to be ignited. Re evening and morning - there are more than one view here, however, either we harken to history - and there is no history pre-6000, and that the Hebrew calendar - the oldest there is - begins after the creation days. The creational days can be cosmic days without contradicting the 24 hour days: hours were not yet mentioned here, even while the day and week was introduced to humanity. The overiding and pivotal factor is how Genesis performs the awesome & risky feat of declaring the beginning of history and speech to a vindicated accuracy of the day and year - which cannot be a coincidence: it is verifably factual.
|
"Then the evening and the morning came and it was the first day."
This is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of a Greek translation from an earlier Hebrew translation. The only beautiful thing that remains is the Hebrew language itself. Older than Moses, it existed and was spoken in Babylon.
Hebrew words are defined by their letters. But through time, like many languages the source of a word has become forgotten.
Evening- Layla
Morning-Yom
Layla = Lamed Yud Lamed Ayin
To/Act/Towards/Nothing
Yom = Yud Mem
Act/Conscious(ness)
(other permutations possible)
Evening and Morning does not pertain to 24 hours. Time was not measured this way.
Time was measured as periods of rest and wakefulness. Evening is when everything ceases activity and Morning is when activity begins.
Hope this helps.
Be willing to let go of the translations based on the Septuagint Bible...look at the Hebrew language itself. The wisdom is locked in the perfection of the language. It is time-proof.
|
The meaning of Bara has long been debated.
From the Telegraph (UK), Professor Ellen van Wolde will present a thesis on this in the Netherlands.
"she has concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"
At a level which, at least I can understand, she points out that in the creation myth, God does not create water.
|
Bet and Resh together implies birthing. To birth, is to create an identity through the separation of one into two, which is the concept of Bet itself, when one becomes two heads--Bet,Resh.
Bereishis is also two beginnings according to the Chumash. It could well being talking about the the beginning of duality of energy that created the concept of time resulting in the creation of space.
|
" it was the first day."
It was 'DAY ONE' [the text]. First day signifies first of many other days - there were no other days. Thus only the next day is called 'SECOND DAY, THIRD DAY, ETC. This shows the awesome brilliance of this texts, as if it knows what future generations will know when their knowledge is greater.
|
RE. "The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"
The term create should first and foremost signify the universe [creation] is 'FINITE'. Thus this verse is the first introduction the universe is finite, and stated in the correct place and context. The separation factor comes later, even after the formless was changed to form [entropy], namely the separation of light from darkness, day from night, etc. The preamble of a finite universe is one good way of presenting a stumbling block to scientists such as DAWKINS: when this becmes the preamble, everything deduced thereafter must allign with that preamble. A finite universe could not happen by itself without a universe maker: at one time there was no space, time, energy, forces, light, etc. Creationism becomes proven by a process of elimination.
|
this is an amazing article which really opened up a new way of looking at the debate for me
|
There was no man to measure the first 5 periods of time listed in the narrative. The idea that it refers to time in the perspective of man does not quite make sense. The Biblical narratives are G-d's Story of His relationship to that which He Created. Thereby the length of a 'Day' is unimportant. Time compression is available to G-d, as it was He who caused the sun-clock to reverse itself 10 hrs. at the behest of The Prophet Yeshyah to show King Hezekyah nothing is impossible for G-d. Therefore 3 billion years of activity could have been compressed into 24 earth hours. HaShem also stopped Time for Yahoshua in order for him to get to where G-d wanted him to be. He has the power to manipulate Nature and time as He sees fit. Lastly, The Prophet Yetzekiel recorded this at chptrs; 2-4 "...I have given you a year for every 'Day." Time in a spiritual vision is compressed." Time is a measurement of distance compared to velocity, & the perspective of the observer" (Dopler)
|
This is the only meaning of a FINITE universe - that all things within the universe never existed pre-universe. This negates the possibility of parallel universes - unless this refers to entities not contained in this universe - otherwise the finite factor is violated. Before any assumptions can be made about the pre-universe, a new knowledge is encumbent in the mind's wiring - because we cannot fathom anything outside this universe constraints: how can we postulate what existed without anything contained in this universe? We cannot even imagine a new 'color'. Humanity is at the stage of seeing only a flat universe. This is probably why Genesis starts at the second alphabet, and will reveal the un-imaginable in its due time - such knowledge now would overide all our faculties, and would prevail only in our sub-conscious realm. Possibly, it is before our eyes and we cannot see it - just as we could not see radar previously.
|
B"H
The Universe is exactly, (let's see...) I awoke at ummmm...5:37 am CST, it is now 1:00 pm CST.
The entire universe is exactly 7 hours, and 23 minutes old. Each time I awaken from slumber, I am given a brand new universe to experience. I could spend many, many lifetimes attempting to determine scientifically, and mathematically; the number of years this universe has been in existence. All that time, I could end up being right or I could end up being 2 seconds off, or even 2 billion years; what have I accomplished? My Universe is a Multi-verse, it doesn't belong to me, but He who made it for Us. I awakened this morning to a crow pecking at my bedroom window. Why my window? Yesterday, it was 4 Bluejays. Hmmm............ L'Chaim!!! G-d truly does Love us.
|
I had to laugh, though, at this: If we want to be thorough, we will need to reconstruct various degrees of nothingness and somethingness in between," This is ADORABLE, but so funny tears are rolling down my cheeks. How old is the universe is to general. We need to ask WHICH universe? Ours? Science pretty much has it down pat from a certain point. Religion goes beyond that to the "before" point. That's all. Sometimes, I think Rabbis and other serious students of Torah go too far and try to CREATE rationales and excuses for why Torah is not scientifically accurate in the physical realm.
|
One day, I was standing between two full length mirrors. As I approached the center point between them, I'd noticed that there appeared to be an infinite number of reflections of myself stretching to infinity. But, I'd also realized that the farther away these images got their size got smaller. Furthermore, I recall standing on a set of railroad tracks and although they were parallel to each other, the farther away from me that I looked they appeared to converge. Time, being a measurement of distance and velocity obviously changes in the perspective of the observer. The further in the past, the tighter the frames of time appear to be. Looking back in time, several billion years appears to me as but a pinpoint of time, whereas just yesterday fits into the space of a few hours of memory from my point of reference; the Here & Now. Both RADAR and Sound are affected by what is called, "The Doppler Effect" which, if you search, you will find its' formula is based upon Time (t) itself.
|
Tzvi, I appreciate that you included your sources in the footnotes. That's a great first step. The next important step in scientific investigation is to seek out credible sources. Unfortunately, this is where you run into a problem.
Richard Milton is not a geologist or a geophysicist. He is not a biologist. He is not even a scientist. So despite his use of big words like "geochronometries" to sound "scientific-y" he is a hack polemicist pandering to an audience of...well, people like you, who seek out only those "facts" that agree with what you want to here.
I would be glad to point you to real scientific literature on the accuracy of dating methods. You will be disappointed to find it is much more accurate than Milton will lead you to believe. The uncertainty on the current world-averaged estimate of the age of the earth is better the 1%.
You should learn the real science *before* you read this kind of literature.
|
In the 1990's, space telescope Hubble captured the birth of a star. Scientific American Journal published almost 100 images of the process, which had taken place during a single 24 hr. earth day. "Let There Be Light" according to Torah occurred on a single day. What is amazing about this is that there were no telescopes anywhere on earth to view this when Moshe wrote the Torah. 4,000 + yrs. later and we find Torah was correct afterall. The last few Hubble images in that spread show what appear to be finger-like tendrils of a nebula grasping the newly born star, and then hurling it outward away from itself into open space, without hitting any other object. Are the nebulae then the angels of Yetzirah? Their same fire shines through the eyes of the living Soul. Science does confirm Torah. To say otherwise is ignorant at best.
|
You might really want to look into the details of your claim that a star was formed in a day. Science news tends to get exaggerated through the rumor mill, and you may be misunderstanding. Stars are not born in a single day. It takes many eons just for the gases to collect into a ball. The life cycle of stars is well understood.Images from the Hubble depict events that happened millions and billions of years ago. It takes the light that long just to reach us.
I agree with your poetic sentiments that I too see G-d in the beauty of the heavens. But, you have to be careful. Science is not consistent with a particularly literal interpretation of Bereishit that implies the world to be only 5770 years old. The vast of cosmic and terrestrial evidence speaks of a Universe many billions of years old. One can claim that G-d "planted" the evidence, but one cannot deny that the evidence is there.
|
1. Richard Milton is not a source, just an addendum. The thesis of the essay does not rely on his book.
2. His book is nevertheless a good book. He is an intelligent, well-educated person, providing a healthy, skeptical view of scientific conclusions and his sources are all peer-reviewed documents.
Being a scientist is not some sort of priesthood. If something is touted as truth, it should be privy to the review of the intelligent layman as well.
|
Light pr se predates the stars - else the stars could not produce light. Here, the Torah is scientifically correct - but the Torah does not say the sun or stars were created in a 24-hour day, nor the earth is 6000 years old. What is often forgotten is although the Hebrews came late in the ancient world, the Hebrew Torah is the world's first alphabetical book and the highest literary work humanity possesses. Its correct textual comprehension is obligatory to all, including scientists & secularists. Where does it say the stars were created in one day: the text only mentions 'LIGHT' from the sun [Luminosity]?
|
One other point...Being a heart surgeon is not some sort of priesthood. But, I assure you, if I need to get heart surgery I will take a doctor over a self-proclaimed quack expert any day.
Some people in the world are more qualified than others, when it comes to highly technical subjects.
You may be an excellent Rabbi, but you sir are not qualified to speak on the science behind dating methodologies.
|
I'm not sure how the term peer reviewed is used in conjunction with Milton's awful book.
If it means that Milton's ideas were reviewed by scientists and found to be idiotic then this might be a correct statement. None of the concepts mentioned in the footnote suggest a young earth.
|
There are many universes and solar systems.There are new ones "born" (created) daily. Is this not a scientific reality? The term "time" itself is flexible. I believe humans have a concrete sense of time. To G-d, a day is as a thousand- a million- a billion years or more, depending on how you count what is a year and to whom on which planet. We count a day and a year as a part of Earth's rotations and our moon seeming to "go up" and "go down". Also, this brings to question "Who Made G-d"? If G-d always existed, then how did G-d, Himself, begin?
|
This not only contradicts science [the uni is finite], but also the Torah texts - because it negates the opening verse which says the universe [heavens, galaxies and the earth] had a beginning. At the very least it makes the term 'BEGINNING' superfluous - doubly contradicting the Torah.
What is most in error here is, after all the manipulation of selecting an unprovable premise - the factor of multiple universes is not just escapism - it does not impact anything. We still end up with the same brick wall at the end. If one accepts infinite universes. Why do we need science - for whatever reason one gives for the earth spinning via gravity, it becomes superfluous because it was eternally that way and no need for any equations.
In conclusion, Genesis prevails when a finite universe is selected. And knock-knock: the uni was not infinite 10 seconds ago - it has since expanded, When the finite factor is violated - it ceases to become science.
|
Yes, it is correct a doctor is best for a heart condition compared to a car mechanic. But chess champs make poor war generals too. Scientists are like accountants - they have to present their findings but not make conclusions thereof - because they are limited by a tunnel vision path, blackmailed, and don't function well in other areas. The situation becomes more alarming when today's scientists are held hostage by anti-Torah atheist sources [which is also unscuentific] - these will make sure those who don't toe the line will have no career anywhere else. What kind of a doctor is that?! Scientists have also been wrong - where has Genesis faltered when read correctly?
|
I highly recommend that you read a basic book on the scientific method or the history of science. Scientists *are* supposed to present findings. Facts are meaningless if not understood in the context of theory. If scientists did not make conclusions (theories) based on their observations (which are designed to verify or falsify these conclusions) there would be no science. The computer you are using is a product of many scientific conclusions (as are the medicines that save millions).
There is not conspiracy of atheists holding science hostage. There are some very vocal atheist mouth pieces, but there are a lot of loudmouths in this world. As a religious scientist, I can say that the community is very sensitive to my observance. You shouldn't believe the crazy conspiracy theories.
Which interpretation of Genesis are you referring to. No Jewish authority (least of all Rambam) takes it completely literally. There are many different readings of Genesis. It can't be compared to science.
|
IamJoseph,
You like would not be able to post to this board or watch TV if not for satellites, orbiting this planet based on the same mechanics developed by Newton 200+ years ago and refined by Einstein in this last century.
I literally *cannot believe* that you would argue that there was no reason to understand why the earth spins. If people had that kind of ignorant attitude, we would still be living in caves and dying of curable diseases.
|
Scientific facts are premises which are vindicated by scientific observation. Genesis introduced these premises:
1. The uni is finite.
2. The first action was the formless [free floating randomity] turning to form [complexity]. There is no alternative to this, else we would not have science or laws. This action would have had to precede any BANG factor of the BB.
3. Critical seperation of the elements in anticipation of forthcoming life [light from darkness; water from land; day from night]. There can be no evolution or life without these actions preceeding.
4. Emergence of life form groups [species] and sub-groups, categorised in their most fundamental traits [veg, ocean life, airborne life, land based, speech endowed life] - in their correct order of emergence.
5. That each group's origins was dual-gendered [no alternative to this], able to seperate and reproduce via the host seed containing a program directive.
Be not confused bythe deceptively simple texts.
|
The footnote has fascinated me for years.
If the book has any value it is as a tool to refine somebody's research capabilities, for example, look up Magnetic Field decay/young earth on google and analyze what is being said about it There is, almost without a doubt, not a single opinion in that book that has any merit.
The items listed exist (such as meteoric dust in the atmosphere) the issue is that the book is wrong in suggesting that this indicates the earth is younger than 4 billion years. The implication that this is a matter of peer reviewed debate is not true.
The ethical dilemma with this also intrigues me. Say somebody reads this footnote and assumes it legitmately refutes scientific understanding and decides, based on this, the earth is 6000 years old. Further, assume that person's belief is now based on a terrible misunderstanding. Is this moral in Judaism? I think the answer is no.
|
I agree with your last points that many of the ideas contained in Bereishit fit nicely with science.
My issue is with the age of the Universe. One clearly cannot take Bereishit at a purely literal interpretation. There are two, somewhat contradictory accounts. The sages, both classical and modern, and the oral tradition provide explanations for these difficulties. Some of these opinions (even old ones) argue for a non-literal meaning to the 7 days of creation...
...Which is why its so annoying to me that any Jewish group would push that notion, now that we have almost overwhelming evidence that the world is MUCH older than 5770 years.
|
I can appreciate your input, however long it took the light to reach our position, when Hubble took those images, they covered a period of 24 earth hours. It may have occurred zillion of yrs. ago, but that star came forth in a single earth day. It blew the minds of the scientists at Jet Propulsion Labs too. Man's perceptions are indeed limitted. I'd thought the word 'Yom' (day) was used figuratively as well. Be that as it may, I am quite certain that cosmology has many more surprises for us, not to mention G-d. Show me, for instance where in Torah does it say,"... and the evening and the morning was the 7th day." If HaShem's Shabbat has no beginning and no end, our reference of time in the case of the 1st 6 days can not be ascertained, until we are within the eternal Shabbat we will never know. Strings, Dark matter, Quantum Metaphysics are all addressed within the Zohar, and the many midrash & commentaries dealing with Kabbalah. It is all in our Torah for us to find.
|
There is nothing more astonishing than the Hebrew calendar, which gives the age for speech endowed humans - exacting to the year. That we do not have a 'NAME' older than 6000 years - the mark of a human, before the Hebrew calendar dating, is remarkable. It is backed by a total vacuum of names, nations, wars, kings & monuments. However, this amazing factor cannot be diluted by aligning this to the age of the earth itself - obviously, a writing cannot display such accuracy in one place and be seen as conclusively wrong in the next verse. Here, the calendar does not include the creation days, and a correct reading of the 4th creation day says it is only talking about light [Luminosity], which says those creational days are not 24-hour days. The text appears authentic from the POV of the subjects it addresses, whereby a greater problem would result if future known terms were used - such as millions of years, durasic age, etc. It is analogous to us not knowing about 5000 years from today.
|
Please know that you CAN believe in G-d, follow many of the Chassidic rules & laws with a literal interpretation of the Torah, on the one hand; while, on the other hand, know that our rational/intellectual mind THRIVES on discussions such as these. "Arguing" is a DESIRABLE trait in a Jew when it is in the form of debating. On these sites, there may NEVER be a finished answer. Know that it is OK to NOT finish an answer. It is also OK to accept BOTH Torah language AND scientific fact. It's ok to believe the stories in Torah are mythology and still believe they are from G-d. How, you ask? Because G-d has given us "Freedom" of choice and offers up situations in which we MUST discuss and come to a conclusion. He does not force us to believe one way or the other. This is why we can all be individuals, while many follow a uniform code of law. Seems difficult to understand, but with love, it's not hard.
|
Kolyah,
I'm unable to find anything that shows this.
You state photographs were taken by Hubble in the 1990s
An article appeared in Scientific American (Journal).
The jet propulsion lab was involved.
The pictures covered a 24 hour period.
I'm not sure how remarkable this would make Genesis 1 if it happened, but it would be remarkable if the telescope could pick up the detail of the activities you mention.
The telescope would have to be looking at something millions (no need to say zillions) of light years away and detect a movement of a single object of less than 1 light day . This is inconceivable.
I get hits for hubble and star birth but there is nothing I've found with multiple pictures of the same star (in 24 hours or other timeframes).
The closest thing I've found so far is .a 10 year analysis performed on galaxy M101 25 million light years from Earth.
Please let me know if you have any additional clues.
|
This seems close to what Kolyah is describing, although the 24 hour thing isn't mentioned.
Nov 2, 1995
News Release Number: STScI-1995-44
Embryonic Stars Emerge from Interstellar "Eggs"
"Eerie, dramatic pictures from the Hubble telescope show newborn stars emerging from "eggs" — not the barnyard variety — but rather, dense, compact pockets of interstellar gas called evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs). Hubble found the "EGGs," appropriately enough, in the Eagle nebula, a nearby star-forming region 7,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Serpens."
Nice pictures.
Regarding resolution Hubble can resolve objects separated by .05 arcseconds, the human eye can do 60.
Resolution of .1 arcsecond would be able to distinguish between two dimes next to each other 23 miles away. 7000 light years = 2.5 million light days. It might be close but I think a light day on this picture would be smaller than a dime at 23 miles.
|
I haven't been able to find anything either as of yet, but not for lack of trying...
I did find something on
IRAS 05436-0007 = V1647 Orionis
Which deals with new stars appearing in an area of the sky that was otherwise dark.This happened relatively quickly.
I would not necessarily be surprised about cases where stars rapidly become luminescent. And, to that extent Kolya may be right. The question is, did such stars form from scratch in a day or is there a tremendously longer back-story? While the appearance might have happened in 24 hours, it is an impossibility that the star formed from scratch in such a short period.
I agree with Kolya's certitude that cosmology has many surprises in store (which is what is so exciting about science). But, of course, the cosmological questions, do not perturb the history of our planet, which relies on more concrete evidence contained in the geological and paleontological record.
Kolya, for the sake of my curiosity, do you know of any sources?
|
We can see things today that happened BILLIONS of years ago because of something I don't understand in the factoring of how fast the speed of light travels along a distance. Also, by observing how NEW galaxies and suns form, science can say with a very high probability, how OUR galaxy and sun was formed. Again, since I am not a scientist, I don't understand it. But, true is true. We can't explain away facts, and just because facts don't fit into our knowledge of science FROM the Torah, doesn't negate the facts. Judaism always adjusts. Science will never wipe out Judaism.
|
Re. It's ok to believe the stories in Torah are mythology and still believe they are from G-d.
We have to make choices, else there is no validity to freedom of choice. That the first introduction of a finite universe is in Genesis, remains an absolute unless counter proof is available. This is valid even if tomorrow we discover it incorrect - it is still relative absolutism today, in equal validity of a parent believing today their child is their own - which may be incorrect if new facts emerge later on.
This differs from the choice of accepting multilpe universes and an infinite universe: such choices are subjective and not based on any factual evidences. Freedom of choice has onerous conditions or else it has no validity.
Use your freedom of choice to prove your choice is valid - choosing to shout FIRE in a cinema is not a valid freedom of choice. Any reasoning which counters Genesis' introduction of a finite universe, or that the universe is not finite - are welcome!
|
This says that a star doe not emit light till it successfully passes its embryotic phase. This says the earth did not have light when it was formed - the critical light was focused on the 4th day [an epoch of time, seeing there was no luminosity yet].
The Q arises, how then did vegetation, fish and birds survive without light, which is seemingly impossible? What has been disregarded here is, genesis is saying all life constructs were created as life - but they were not 'alive' when created. Animated life began when the life cycles were ignited [mist of rain, etc - ch.3], aka the breath of [living] life.
This is like a completed car - it does not move until ignited. It sounds controversial, but there is no alternative to this dazzling premise. Think about it: evolution is telling us that half completed life forms came alive, then evolved into more complex life forms - but this is like saying a car's steering occured, then it moved and begat the rest of the car parts. Really!?
|
Can you shorten your position and state it more succinctly, please? I don't get it.
|
Hi Karen, nice to see you again.
The inconceivable part is to visually identify a single star that is more than a certain distance away. Stars seem to be born in clouds which make it more difficult..
Matt's source, for instance, doesn't even discuss visual evidence or Hubble.
Kolyah's position is very interesting, and recalls the Jewish concept of zakhor - remembering. Perhaps he remembers something that wasn't explicitly stated in the article; this is a very Kosher and common phenomena.
It seems clear that he saw pictures from Hubble, probably in Scientific American.
Digital archives of all Scientific American articles from 1993 cost $39.95/year. Individual articles are also available but I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to match.
What would really blow my mind would be a picture of a sun and moon forming in a 24 hour period around a previously existing planet.
|
Shortened: Genesis' creation days are not 24 hour days; the earth is not 6000 years old. I gave reasons why this is scientifically correct as per Genesis' texts: the sun did not focus light on earth at the beginning, and a life construct did not move immediately it was created.
|
I don't think you will find a pic. of a sun and moon forming in a 24 hour period around a previously existing planet. Is this a rhetorical statement? Suns and moons do not form around a planet. Believing so would be believing a myth.
|
"The earth was without form and void..." The first 6 days may have been days of planning within the dream of He who is one. Time is not constant without gravity, in order to have gravity there must be mass. (See: "Timeless Patterns in Time" by R. Shneerson) 24 hour days are not the point of the text; perhaps it is the order of things, or perhaps it is all a parable with many layers. The Rebbe taught that there were many ways of Torah interpretation. Each of us, as an observer have an affect upon that which is observed. We change what we see, when we see it. To see in many colors is a true gift of Spirit. Ever notice that when we remember a past event visually, that we can't seem to see the here and now simultaneously? Where does the Light come from when I am dreaming of a sunny day at the beach, and my physical eyes are shut in REM sleep? Nocturnal emissions, and even real death have resulted from dreams, so, are they not also a reality? All of U R Stars to me, in the Here & Now.
|
We cannot say this of all documents, but if a document gives millions of correct stats, numbers, dates, distances, laws, the first alphabetical books, the most advanced and oldest calendar - such seen throughout its verses - then we can certainly accept what does not satisfy is the lacking in the beholder. If the first two opening verses declares the universe is finite, then that the formless was turned to form - it impacts on a host of scientific premises accepted today. This includes Natural Selection - because there is no such thing as NATURE - and that there can be no scientific laws unless the premise of the formless is first made able to be the formed. Because laws are based on a complexity [formed] - derived from random [formless].
|
I have no more comments except to say that there is no answer to the question.
|
The Nebular Hypothesis is currently the most popular theory of how the Solar System formed/ The Hiubble pictures from 1995 seemed to provide direct observation of this happening.
The Earth, as a rocky planet, formed around the same time as the sun. The moon is also quite old and current thinking is it was cut from the earth by a collision of earth with a Mars sized object..
The sun went through about a 50 million year period of hyper activity which probably saw the creation of at least the four inner planets as well as earth's moon. Mars's 2 moons.are probably just asteroids)
It's possible that the day the moon was knocked out of the earth, something interesting happened to the sun..
Maybe an alien civilization caught this from their own hubble and dispatched a space ship with the Solar System's baby pictures. Maybe it will land on Earth in the Jewish year 6000.
Pretty unlikely I suppose, but more likely than anything in footnote 3.
|
There is no explicable premise for the earth being life friendly [water; oxyen] and the moon being not and lifeless like other planets. This is specially so if the moon is seen as coming from part of the earth. The notion of the earth predating other planets has no plausable reasoning. Here, there are two striking factors in Genesis whcih confoms with science and logic:
In the 4th day the stars are mentioned immediately after the sun's light is mentioned - it is saying for the first time that our sun is a star - which has great impacts on later cosmology.
The other factor of Genesis is that our sun did not emit light at once, and that vegetation appeared [but it did not grow] before the sun's light was focused on earth. This has unusual and radical credibility because the sun's light is a life sustaining fuel, but is not the life giving source - else all planets which also have the same sunlight would display life.
|
I am in AWE, definitely. Did you learn in college these things?
|
Hey Rabbi Tzvi,
Can you explain to me why your table gives an age for the earth, as measured using Carbon 14 dating? C14 cannot be used to date rocks...It only works on organic, carbon-based samples that are less than 50k years old...
I've been going through the table. Nearly all of the categories on the table are not actual dating methods...I would love to see 1 peer-reviewed paper to corroborate any of those numbers...If you can find any at all, I'm willing to bet that it will be more than 50 years old and refuted by a more modern paper.
And why doesn't Milton present the values determined using appropriate dating methods (like say Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Ar-Ar, or Re-Os)?
I really think that you should fact-check your sources. Since, they weren't peer reviewed you've got no choice but to do it yourself... And, you don't want to be spreading misinformation...right?
|
Thanks for the compliment Karen. I majored in Liberal Arts in College. Any scientific knowledge I've gained has been by first making silly statements and then looking them up, hoping I haven't made too big a fool of myself.
The few facts here, I only just learned and was inspired by your question a few messages ago. The relative quickness with which the earth and moon appeared after the collapse of the solar nebulah is striking. An interesting fact I came across was why astronomical bodies of a certain size or greater are almost perfectly spherical as compared to say the moons of Mars, the answer is gravity.
A lot of quantum physics, string theory, etc. is based on equations, where solving them involves cancelling out infinities. Chabad cosmology is the opposite, holding that there is no independent reality outside of the infinite - cancelling finites.
|
Hey Rabbi Tzvi,
Can you explain to me why your table gives an age for the earth, as measured using Carbon 14 dating? C14 cannot be used to date rocks...It only works on organic, carbon-based samples that are less than 50k years old...
I've been going through the table. Nearly all of the categories on the table are not actual dating methods...I would love to see 1 peer-reviewed paper to corroborate any of those numbers...If you can find any at all, I'm willing to bet that it will be more than 50 years old and refuted by a more modern paper.
And why doesn't Milton present the values determined using appropriate dating methods (like Pb-Pb, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Ar-Ar, etc) ?
I really think that you should fact-check your sources. Since, they weren't peer reviewed you've got no choice but to do it yourself... And, you don't want to be spreading misinformation...right?
|
This book is supposed to be one of the latest information books about the universe. There is speculation that the universe is 15 billion years old and that G-d is not THE universe or IN the universe but is an entity totally diverse from the universe. Very philosophical treatise.
|
Those figures were provided in Milton's first edition simply to demonstrate the tenuous nature of dating methods, not as reliable data. His point is simply that there are no dating methods upon which we can rely with certainty.
I do note that in his second edition, he removed this chart. So I'm doing the same. It's a distraction from the thesis of the article at any rate.
Let me bring out one point here: Any rational proposition relies on assumptions. The chronologies placed before us by contemporary physical sciences are based on multiple assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the universe is not a deliberate, conscious act, but a product of blind forces. Open your mind to the thought for a moment that it may well be otherwise. How much does that change?
|
approximately 15 billion years old. This is the answer when you Google "Cosmology".
|
Dear Rabbi,
The only time "yom" is disputed is in Berseishis, chapter one, the rest of the time it is understood to be "evening and morning and the next day"And the only time this became mainstream was when Darwin birthed his primate ancestors. To me this is truth and world in opposition..nothing new.
But just to go back to the actual "big bang" one has to agree as many have said that this is an impossible model to be scientific, simply because there would be nothing to stop the matter in its outward spread...nothing could have stopped ever!
On the fact of the presence of granite ONLY on earth and not on any other planet proves that water was present in the beginning because you cant get granite to form without water. So if the earth was a molten projectile that cooled then no granite could have formed as is the case of all the continents today.
In case of angular momentum only 1/200 exists for earth to be from the sun and have an orbit such as ours.
Thank for taking the time.
|
Let the Bible define itself. Whereas, the use of the word 'YoM' (Hebr.; day) seems quite concrete as a 24 -hr humanly perceived day, elsewhere in the texts of the Bible, the same word 'YoM'' is used in a different way. Jeremiah was told by G-d that Israel would be captive to Babylon for 70 YoMim (Weeks), and the prophet Ezekiel (ch 2-4) was told, " I (G-d) have given you a year for each day (YoM). Then again in the book of Daniel, (ch 12) the angel tells him that Israel would go through difficulties for a number of days, (1290 and then 1335 resp.) This tells me that the word day can be used to denote a complete period of time from darkness to light, or from idea to formation, from ignorance to enlightenment, from base matter to energy. It also tells me that in the spiritual (and prophetic) world, time can be compressed, or stretched. It is not concrete after all. There was no man to tell time for the first 5 days. The Universe is 7 Spiritual Days Old, or just One (Shabbat)
|
You cannot demonstrate the tenuous nature of dating methods with phony data! That's called lying and it is what Milton is doing.
Arguing supernatural intervention is very different than implying that the data are unreliable because of errors in methodology. To make the latter claim without knowledge of the subject (as Milton does) is dishonest. So, thanks for taking that down.
I fully agree that if G-d purposefully constructed all of these thousands of lines of evidence to make the Universe appear as if it were old, there is no way for science to make the distinction. I have serious issues with the idea of G-d faking evidence, but I don't have a problem with other people believing that
My problem is when chabad.org attacks the scholarship and integrity of the science. Or when it criticizes other observant Jews (especially Rabbinic authorities!) who accept the conclusions of these very compelling data.
|
Granite is formed by magma produced by volcanic activity. Volcanic activity is common on other planets and moons in the solar system. There is a requirement for "volatiles" to form granite.which are materials with low boiling points.
Volatiles are very common, except on Earth's moon... moreover water itself is also not unknown on other bodies..For example earth probably got its water from comets. Water also probably exists or existed on Mars and Venus.
Regarding the big bang: The universe is expanding.. Galaxies further apart the 130 sextillion (=10 to the 21 power) Km actually are separating at faster than the speed of light.
The diameter of the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years even though it is only 13.7 billion years old.
Assumptions here are called "strong priors". To claim that everything could be wrong and the universe could actually be only 6000 years old (or 15 billion for that matter) is a misunderstanding of this concept.
|
Very interesting response! Congratulations.
|
The text says that light was not focused on earth the first 3 days, coming only in the 4 day. This negates the 24 hour period.
|
...simply does not line up. For one thing, the stars are not created until after fish and birds have already been created.
Common descent is not a problem. The narrative sequence is.
Understanding how a prophetic vision lines up with observed phenomena will take more creativity than has been yet invested.
|
In fact, the Torah says nothing about the stages our sun is going through. It went from being a baby to a child and I believe it is in its adolescence now. At some point it will reach adulthood, old age, and then death. I hope by then, we will be able to travel to other planets or other solar systems and continue living as humans.
|
A group of religious Jewish scientists in Israel have developed an engine that will permit interstellar travel.
They are waiting for an opinion by the Rabbinical Court on how to deal with Shabbat before final testing.
... just kidding :)
|
I am not submitting that G-d "purposefully constructed all of these thousands of lines of evidence to make the Universe appear as if it were old."
I am submitting that if you consider the world to have arisen by accident, then the only plausible explanation would require billions of years.
But if our universe emerged through deliberate action, as the psalmist says, "mountains arose, valleys sunk, to the place You allotted to them," then we no longer need anywhere near that amount of time to explain these same phenomena.
|
In regards to the issue of light... that was on the first day not the fourth, that was when the sun was created. Light is the binding agent of all matter and must come first before matter. Example is that if a marble was was an proton of an atom then the orbit of the electron would be 2 MILES away, that is matter is mostly light and that in itself is a miracle of creation that pure energy can be solid matter at all. A comet the size that is needed with enough water to cover the earth would in fact destroy the earth. There is no granite on other planets and supply your source of data. You need billions of years to exclude G_D from creation and replace it with the god of chance and time so you believe in the begining "dirt" and I believe in the begining "G_D" both are religions but you should not "mix" the two.
|
My understanding is out of a great many arguments (good ones too, I might add). The prophets relied upon those texts of scripture that had been written by their predecessors. Daniel relied upon Torah, Samuel, and Jeremiah's books (ch. 9:1-8), in addition to prayer, meditations, and computations. He was also divinely inspired. Many scholars agree that the book of Daniel was completed circa 606-607 bce. If that is the case, then by viewing the numbers as stated prior (1290 & 1335, resp.) as years (by Ezekiel's count; 1 day = 1 year) then the Age of Moshiach may well begin 2019-2020 ce. Which coincides with the teachings of 'The Rebbe' and many others. With no "and the evening and the morning was the 7th day" to be found in Torah, and also that Adam was put into slumber and not awakened yet; I guess we are all simply dreaming. Time is not constant while asleep. It is but a measurement for the observer to compare. "G-d says, 'I have declared the end at the beginning." -Isaiah 46:10
|
Absolutely. Gd is truth. A falsehood and the holy one cannot abide together. But the Hebrew calendar, the world's oldest and most accurate, starts after the creation days and accurately describes historical time from the POV of humans. We have no 'NAME' or history per se pre-6000. How come?
|
I analyzed this in more depth after making ny response and am amazed and relieved that my comments above still seem reasonable.
This theory is sort of a vague indication that Genesis 1 is accurate - ie water is only present on Earth.
This maybe based on
No water, no granites ‐ No oceans, no continents
I. H. Campbell/S. R. Taylor
Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra- 1983
1983 was a few years ago and this is a long time for scientific research. This paper has received a lot attention. One response is
Origin of the Ocean and Continents: A Unified Theory of the Earth
David Deming
University of Oklahoma,
published in 2002
"...widespread hydration of the oceanic crust did not occur until about 3.0 Ga...the origin of the ocean and the continents is the slow and gradual accumulation of water on the surface of the Earth by extraterrestrial accretion."
Ga means billion years ago... the earth is about 4.5 Ga.
|
I have been trying to understand the seven days of creation for a long time...and I still get surprised at the depth of what is written in there.
That it is truth is not the question but how it is true. The older you reach back to the meaning of the narrative the truer it is compared to recent understanding.
It requires one to know so much more than average biology and cosmology as well as history in order to SEE it. The words are too concentrated, too compact that to unfold it would require so much words. So much more words that can be spoken in a lifetime. It is just impossible to explain to someone who has not seen it too.
|
Fair enough.
But, my point still holds...If G-d hit the fast forward button, then time meant something different in the first 6 days, and I agree that science would be unable to distinguish this from genuine age. This does not mean that scientists are sloppy or even lying, as Milton's trashy book tries to slander them. It means that G-d implemented 14 billion years of change in 7 days, supernaturally. And, science reconstructed it correctly within the framework of natural law as we know it today. If the earth orbited the sun many millions or billions of times in 6 days, what is the meaning of calling it "six days" in the first place?
Since G-d made the Universe in a way that is identically consistent with a 14 billion year-old history, there must be some significance to that implicit history.The astronomical, geological and paleontological record tell a very clear story and I feel strongly that G-d wanted us to hear that story, or else he wouldn't have made the world the way he did.
|
The answer to why we have no history pre-6000 is because we were Neanderthals, and didn't become "human" in the sense of humanity, until G-d breathed life into us (soul, conscience, values). If you notice, there is still a great deal of mention in the Torah about CAVES. Maybe we had transitioned from wild to human around the time of Adam and Eve, and it was G-d who deliberately made the difference between us humans and the wild animals. In effect, we were "upgraded" from wild animal to human gardeners and animal caretakers. We were supposed to take care of G-d's creation, right? Just my opinion. So, at the point when Adam is mentioned, is also the point at which our knowledge of G-d becomes "alive". The stories of Eve and the serpent are probably allusions to the gaining of conscience and love of G-d/ opposed to egocentric wild animal survival methods. Every culture, in fact, has some allusion to an "Adam/Eve" beginning.
|
This still requires more thought. Generally, we say that product reflects process. A deliberate product should bear evidence of such--and a haphazard product likewise.
|
Sorry I missed this question...supply your source of data.
Could use a little more room but...
ASTEROIDAL GRANITE-LIKE MAGMATISM 4.53 GYR AGO Kentaro Terada and Addi Bischoff, Astrophysical Journal Letters 2009
"These ages represent the crystallization age of a parental granite-like magma that is significantly older than those of terrestrial (4.00-4.40 Gyr) and lunar granites (3.88-4.32 Gyr) indicating that the clast in Adzhi-Bogdo is the oldest known granitoid in the solar system. This is the first evidence that granite-like formation is not only a common process on Earth, but also occurred on primitive asteroids in the early solar system 4.53 Gyr ago."
|
Aren't humans a flawed and haphazard product? We have wars, we have jealousies and angers, we have adults who have not outgrown their childhood narcissism. Man's inhumanity to man, and all that.
|
That's good stuff. Emperically, we have no NAME pre-6000, when we should have 1000's., a name being the fundamental mark of speech. This indicates the reason we see no human kings, wars, nations, monuments either. Genesis is exacting to the day and year, making it the most mysterious document humanity possesses, also introducung grammer in the first advanced alphabetical book. If some desert Jews faked all this - that would make them even greater in a sense. Genesis even allows humans as derived from animals - 1000's of years before Darwin.
|
Yes, I have to agree with Karen,
It is a principle of Chasidus that G-d's presence must be hidden. That would defeat the point of faith. G-d made space for the world to be imperfect, and to exist on it's own terms. I would not expect to find a calling card for G-d imprinted in the creation. In other words, I don't feel like the product *should* reflect the process.
I would also say that the adjective "haphazard" does not do service to the immense beauty and elegance of early-Universe cosmology or evolutionary theory. I see G-d's hand in perfectly setting the conditions for life to emerge, and then gently choosing the particular evolutionary outcomes to generate our specific world-history, but in a way that is perfectly consistent with (and therefore hidden behind) the probabilistic nature of evolutionary processes.
I actually see G-d within these theories, not excluded by them.
|
If the universe was created recently, there is an issue with us being able to see stars whose light could not have reached the earth in the 6000 or so years.
Therefore at the moment of creation, God must have extended the light from stars to arrive at earth because if a star is too far away we could not see it.
If we consider the Chabad concept of continuous creation....
The light from distant stars is constantly propelled to earth at speeds vastly exceeding the speed of light depending on the distance between the star and earth.
This has interesting implications, does the sun's light get to earth instantly or does it take 8 minutes? What about near stars like alpha centauri at 4.2 light years?
The more distant an object is the greater the increase in speed.
It seems to me this concept is testable, perhaps it will result in a new concept of relativity.
|
It's not simply a matter of "defeating the point of faith." A transparent world--one that screams, "I am a creation!" is not a world. Just like a story that screams, "I am just a story!" or a play that screams, "We're just a bunch of actors following this script some author wrote!"
So the creation should look like something that can explain itself. Superficially. I would expect a deeper examination, however, to reveal a deeper truth.
|
Although we have no evidence of names pre- 6000's (as you put it) I would say that there are no 'written' names earlier than that era. The Oral tradition precedes the written, sometimes by a factor of ten, as Abraham had kept all of the laws of Torah before Moshe had recorded it (B'Reshith 26:5). Symbology, and early art works have been dated back into the pre-Wurm era (earlier than the last Ice Age). Perhaps, intuition (ESP) was more often relied upon than it is today? Or perhaps, they were just too busy laying the groundwork for civilization to begin. Babies of today learn names long before they learn to read and write. I would bet they did as well. Dig into Native American culture and you may find that they were similar, finding little reason to develop a system of writing as their oral tradition was thought to be adequate. To many native tribes, 'The Maker' was hidden only to those who were blinded by arrogance. They also kept time by the lunar calendar like the early Hebrews.
|
Reminds me of Twilight Zone...we are now entering a world of sight and sound, fueled by only the imagination... whooooooooo. Smile.
|
I've read Joseph's writings with interest for many years.
His position is that humans could not speak until 6000 years ago.
While I don't agree with this, if it is true, it is one of the best explanations for Genesis 1.
He also points out that we don't have written records before 6000 years ago. This is remarkable in conjuction with Torah chronology and seems more or less accurate.
After this we get into the names and hebrew calendar, etc.
I majored in Anthropology in college (probably bridge and chess would be more accurate). I was tempted to make a comment about Neanderthals being around 6000 years ago but decided to let it go.
|
I used to love that series. If we see with only our fleshly eyes, we are absolutely missing out on a great deal. My eyes can be fooled by a simple card trick slight of hand, why rely upon them alone? My hearing isn't up to par with my neighbor's dog, nor is my sense of smell. Yet, my Ego thinks that I somehow know more because I can rationalize things to suit my own sense of importance. Hah! My ego betrays me again. The Universe is still only a few hours old as I've said before. I try to keep open to its' sense of wonder, and allow myself to smile abit more each time a new day arrives. Rabbi Freeman, I think I'll just listen and learn for awhile. Thank you for all of your efforts, and kindness.
|
These are bogus in the absence of surrounding, graduated imprints. The only meriting factor is the Genesis dating to NAMES and the total lack of any real disputational evidence. There also seems no possibility the Genesis factor will be wronged in the future - the vacuum of names is so huge and widespread. Oral to writing takes a few centuries, with manifest imprints of its transitory evolution.
|
Genesis is correct vegetation can precede the sun's luminosity focusing on earth. A careful reading of the text says something remarkable yet unrecognised adequately. Geneis says the lfirst and original constructs of life forms were completed but they were not alive. The life became alive when they were ignited - by cycles of rain, water levels, sunlight, etc.
Analogy: a completed car does not move till ignited [with the car key] - and ignition is not possible unless completed.
|
"How about the origin of life? The Ramban (Nachmanides, 14th century Jewish scholar) understands Genesis as saying that the water, through its movement, metamorphosed into the creatures of the sea. This, then, is a description of a kind of evolutionary process. It's not just G-d says fish and fish are there. G-d directs a natural element to become fish, just as He directs the earth to sprout forth vegetation."
If this is so, the Torah still states that G-d created Adam Himself by molding the body and soul , and not through metamorphosis contrary to Ramban's opinion of the "evolutionary process" (seemingly applied to only animals). Human beings and animals such as monkeys and apes have extremely similar characteristics and similar DNA, and theory explains that both originated from a common ancestor long ago. How can that explanation be justified by a person who believes that G-d created animals and human beings separately and on separate days, even if it was through "evolution"?
|
I don't think that the views of scientists about God should be given any special attention, but in his new book, Hawkings has said he has decided that God didn't create the Universe.
Lord Sacks, the chief Rabbi of England responded, "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the universe came into being."
The last sentence is very interesting, in that he may be saying that Genesis 1, etc is not actually speaking to this point, which is more or less consistent with my position.
Of course, maybe he meant something else.
One note regarding Dr. Hawking. He is very recognizable, brilliant, and writes popular books. But my impression is that he doesn't really stand out from, say, the top 50 astrophysicists in the world.
|
I've noticed that time can only exist as "time" when something is occurring to mark it. Therefore the only real number that counts, is 5,771. The One who established time as nature's earth-law, started the clock then presumably, because the events that followed He considers, are the only ones worth measuring.
|
Once "men" of G_D tried to make the Torah fit in into the minds of doubters and atheists is when the very same men became the final authority, as to what is literal and what is allegory...
Which is the greater sin? The one calling G_D a liar or the one putting words into G_D's mouth.
I am blessed with a simple mind...what G_D wrote is what it is!!
|
Figure out how old is the universe. They have given it in the ballpark of many billions of years, and they can divide various universes and solar systems. In fact, they can view NEW universes being "born" through some scientific method. Interesting, and scary. The stuff of science fiction only it is now reality! Imagine, viewing planets as they are created by G-d. In fact, this brings up another related question and that is, if new planets, solar systems and universes are being created on an ongoing basis, then DID G-D really ever REST? I don't believe so, but I do NOT want to give up on the Sabbath. Our bodies and souls need rest as humans. G-d, not being human, really didn't NEED to rest. It appears as though He is still at work creating!
|
If so, what is happening to us on Earth when it does that? Also, there is evidence that our universe is still in a constant state of creation and elimination. Stars growing and dying. Planets growing and exploding. Etc. I would say each day the universe is one day old. The next day, it is one day old again. Because that is how we view it. Right?
|
When our scientific knowledge increases, we will be able tio read quarks and their force fields, direct them to rise or lower the oceans' levels and change their trajectories. We do this every day in ither areas - like pesticides in farms, antibiotics and electro-magnetism devices - magic?! Otherwise humanity will not survive the future.
IMHO, this higher knowledge of the elements and sub-atomic realms is what Gd used when splitting the sea, causing a strong easterly wind, and with all other miracles.
The science we use today has been structured and provided - there is no other explanation where these emerged. Myth is accepting a complexity from random. We are like microbes in a mobile chip, thinking the wirings is nature and no mobile maker exists. This is just a thought based on logical conjuring. There is no magic or miracles or nature, all are based on empirical premises, and these premises are purposefully provided us. A cell phone seen 1000 years ago is today's magic.
|
A day to us IS AS a thousand years to G-d is just a metaphor. It could also be MILLIONS of years to G-d is a day to us. Trillions, or billions. G-d may EVEN have no concept of time as we define the word. So, how OLD something is, would be a moot issue to G-d. He is what He is, and so time itself is non existent.
|
Chaya: The concept of time is not different to G-d, He just has no requirement to experience it in a linear fashion as we do. Time exists very much for G-d, he is both within and beyond this world simultaneously.
If there is no time for G-d, how then He can call Israel his first born?
|
Thank you so much for this wonderful article - I have never before received an answer so clear. Despite its depth and complexity it speaks to my heart as well as my understanding.
|
Dear Rabbi, what about ancient kabbalists who wrote that the age of the universe is older than 5,000 years + (including essays by R. B'Chaye, Tiferes Yisrael, and others?) see also Aryeh kaplan's translation of Sefer Yetzirah where he brings down (frum) sources that quote the universe as being in the Billions of years old.
|
WOW - who'd have thought such a question would produce such a response!?So scientific, so emotional, so poetic, so spiritual?! An almost dllettante question has generated almost a book, but I think that is the Jewish way...... Its just wonderful, and marvellous. Its the kind of experience that makes me wish I was born Jewish, and not just a gentile who attended Jewish school from age 5 to 11. Having read carefully, and open-mindedly, all the responses, I would say this; G_d is G_d, the world is as created, and my question was probably irrelevant, but interesting. Should we not rather consider the world as it is, and what we should do in it now. As one philosopher said long ago, "help us to become what you created us to be!". But thank you all anyways for the most amazing journey of discovery..... how old is the unvierse - Only G_d knows.
|
In my reading, the following is given in the text:
V1. All of the universe and its content was created. No laws, thus no time, yet occured, and everything was one big mush: there was nothing yet seperated for time to measure.
V2. Laws were ushered, and things became seperated from each other, namely the 'formless' mush became 'formed' into new components. This is the beginning of science [laws].
V3. The most primal, foremost 'formed' items are listed: light is energy and a primal item without which nothing is possible, including suns, planets and life. The sun cannot produce light unless light is pre-existing.
The next verses list items more closely associated with earth and anticipating factors for life: day from night [pre-requisite for time measurement], and water from land [vital for forthcoming life in all forms].
The above accounts for billions of years and in line with science views. Historical human time began after the above, aligning exactly with the Hebrew calendar.
|
This is a very astute and concise thought. Bravo. In fact, if G-d does not experience time in a linear manner, then He must be experiencing it in a circular manner. This would explain why Orthodox Frum people say G'd ordered both good and bad things to happen. Interesting philosophies and theories which some people make into a truth which is solid and fixed. I personally don't believe that Israel is Go-d's firstborn. Literally, the ANIMALS were G-d's firstborn because they were created before humans. Of the living things, though, ADAM was the one G-d breathed life into, not Israel. So, that statement has to be metaphorical, not biological.
|
B"H
Perhaps the 1st chapter is just metaphor? Perhaps it is describing the World of Torah, rather than the world in the terms of physicality alone? Torah is not concrete, it is like oil and water, fluid, and flowing. Mankind was not around for the first 5 of six the creative days. Therefore, the first 5 days may have been zillions of aeons in linear time, or even a single flash in terms of a spiral flow of time. (See; "Timeless Patterns of Time", by 'The Rebbe' M. Schneerson) This being the more apt conception of the 1st chapter, the rest of Torah can be viewed similarly. The kabbalists have always stood upon this type of principle. To view Torah as just a book of laws and ethics alone is rather ignorant. So, this leads me to a quest-ing: " How is it that we mortal men have tried so hard to prove the literal out of what is obviously metaphor? and, Why do we insist on Linear time when everything in Our Universe is spherical, rounded, curved, and circular? I'm resisting my urges here
|
Those opinions are either speaking of time in the future (Isaac of Acco) or of spiritual worlds that preceded our own, but do not run within our time continuum. This is the "ontological continuum".
|
Time is dependent on, measured by and is subject to 'changes'. The verse 'I AM GOD I HAVE NOT CHANGED' says that time or anything else cannot changed God. This does not mean time is not known to the Creator of time.
Prior to V2, where seperations were actioned in the universe, it is possible that time never existed as yet.
|
Why can't both sides just agree that both disciplines are always changing.; eg the Siceintific point of view and the Torah view; Rishonim used to think that the earth was flat, that spontaneous generation was possible, that lice came from sweat etc., Scientists, in their camp used to think that smoking helped digestion, that breast milk was not as good as their chemical conconctions, that thalydamide was a good cure, etc
Both sides keep changing their stories. Why cant we just look back at at history, and admit to ourselves, that ours and later generations, may view current science and torah knowledge, differently than we currently do.... People on this forum are discussing what exactly the scientific method is and is not. Instead perhaps they should admit to themselves, that meforshim (R. Bechaye on Breishis, Tiferes Yisrael on Mishnayos, etc, ) point to a universe much older than 7,000 years. Why critiisize others when our own meforshim back up some scientific views???
|
Yes and No. A metaphor points to a definitive statement via inference. If we see, for example, the Adam & Eve story as metaphoric - yes it does work, whereby we are always tested wherever we turn.
However, if we read the text carefully, the metaphorical factor becomes less credible and the actuality more plausable, or at least irrefutable: the text is speaking of a realm outside the universe, stating the story happened elsewhere and the entities Adam & Eve were then cast down to earth, with fiery angels barring any return.
The text cannot be read only as a metaphor - it must be vindicated from all views, to be transcendent. Further, the introduction of the DAY & WEEK cannot be accounted as metaphoric, nor can the premise of a finite universe or the seperation factors mentioned in ch. 1. These are 100% non-metaphorical and science aligned. The Torah is the only scripture which does not claim the earth as flat; in fact it antithises this.
|
That this particular universe has been around forever (in our mentality). I wonder what will happen if science discovers newer and older universes, with some perhaps mirroring our own or being a complete reversal. Right now, this is science fiction. But, who knows what science will discover in another 100 years or so?
|
Yes Iam Joseph! Time certainly could not have existed until God created it, which the first chapter of Genesis plays out in detail. So the pre-existing heavens and the earth, being prepared out of what was not visible, are set in order - put into a 'time framework' , a controlled state - at the point where Light enters and is that where Judaism starts counting?
|
Thanks for the references Mechael.
The changing stories thing is a polemical argument that is popular in Chabad. It has no merit that I can see. The examples you give are all medical, they really don't apply.
The argument of Isaac of Acre is not very good. The earth is 4.5 billion years old while his calculation is 15 billion years which might relate vaguely to the 13.7 billion years from the big bang, but this isn't what the Genesis 1 creation myth is saying.
The theory is based on psalms 90:4 "A thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday." Thus verse is probably not meant to be literal, but anyway the calculation of a divine year being 365,250 years long is wrong. Thus a day's length 4.5 billion years ago was only 6 hours. Half a billion years ago, days were 22 hours. Thus 365 days in a year is a relatively recent phenonmenum. Seen in this light (no pun intended) this calculation becomes even less profound.
|
Thanks to all who post. It makes me think and research the ideas. I am also amazed at the open mindedness which is expounded upon here. Congratulations to us all!
|
Genesis' Big Bang is more scientific:
1. There can be no bang unless something already exists to go bang. Genesis states first there was creation [v1], then laws which gave form to the formless creation [v2], then there was the big [Let there be light] bang. Logical!
2. There can be no original singularity [an indivisible & irreducible entity] able to bang/expand: it takes two to tango applies. Genesis states everything, including life, initiated in a duality ['Man & woman created he them]. Logical!
When delved into, the BBT is a greasy kid stuff premise: if the universe is expanding this way it must have come from that- away. But the universe is not expanding - the original beginning construct is expanding and everything is inside it; there is no outside of it. Genesis also says there is no singularity in the universe - because no action can be subscribed to it. Logical!
The science is firmly on Genesis' side.
|
One thing that is very obvious to me is that if the "billions" of years are taken away from the table then evolution cannot be any theory..and then G-D is true and let man be al iar. Then the ten commandments will be back at schools and then children having children will stop and kids will trust their parents once again and the Massiach will arrive..B"H
|
B"H
Are there not 365 positive Mitzvoh in the Torah? One for each day of the year? Still, in the first few chapters of Ezekiel, it is written, "...I have given thee a year for every day." And for Iam Josef; you mentioned science being involved in the parting of the sea. If we read the parashah carefully, it says that when Moshe and the Israelites cried out to HaShem to save them His reply was, " Why are you crying unto Me?" and He said to Moshe, " Tell the children of Israel to go into the water, and You shall raise thy staff and part the waters." Along that line, perhaps Elokim had given mankind dominion over the Air, the Sea, and the Earth; and not simply the birds, fish, and the cattle. In other words He'd given us the power from the get-go, and we've blinded ourselves to this. Hosea 8:8 tells us that the descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had become Goy (gentiles). Which means that 3/4 of Israel has been blinded to who they are. Today, we can wake them up if we try.
|
B"H
Thank you Reb Freeman, for your interest in my writings. (Some have told me I am at the borderline of madness, it is surely possible but I hope not.)
I reread my post prior to your statement "kabbalists view???", it is obvious that my wording was illconcieved. I meant to say that " many kabbalists have stood in agreement with the precept ;'Torah is not just a book of laws', and that it is not to be understood only in the literal sense." 'The Orchard' (P.R.D.S.) method of interpretation has been well established. For example, the Hebrew words for; 'day', 'time', 'times', 'ages', and 'generations' are sometimes used as metaphorical descriptions of distinct and separate periods of linear time, that may be literal, and may also indicate periods of time beyond man's abilities to describe with language in verbatim (Dan. 9, 11, 12). The words; 'Epoch', Aeon', and 'Era' are the English words used convey these time periods, taken from Greek. But (Mesa) Hebrew is about 2,500+ yrs older.
|
Unfortunately for some, there are too many independent scientific disciplines that all say the earth and universe are older than 6000 years. From astrophysics, to geology, to frozen mastadon's preserved in arctic ice, to evolutionary biology, to the study of languages which tells us that the aboriginal language is 40,000+ years old.
That is not to say Hashem could have "tricked us" as they say regarding dinosaur bones just to test our faith, but I believe in a straight-forward God.....why cant we just hold like the rambam and other rishonim, acharonim, etc, that when it comes to science, medicine, etc, the chachamim were not experts in their fields; and that as times changes, so too does the understanding of the chachamim, lets leave the Torah and its details and analysis to the chachamim, and the astrophysics, carbon dating and evolutionary biology to the scientists.....a fair division of labor in my opinion....
|
1. While Genesis introduced the DAY & WEEK to humanity, it precedes this with seperation factors which account for millions and billions of years [seperation of light from darkness; day from night; water from land].
2. The DAY in the creation verses are pre-sun luminosity [the text; see V 14, which relates only to sunlight]. IOW, a 24-hour day cannot be accounted w/o the sun's luminosity being critically focused on the earth.
3. The Hebrew calendar, the most accurate, oldest and active, begins 'AFTER' the creational days. Why so?
There is no ther reading of this when the accuracies of genesis is factored in. The 5770 years refers only to speech endowed humans: we do not even have a 'NAME' pre-6000! Nor even a king, city, nation, war, momument, etc. In fact no history per se pre-6000. Accident!?
In a sense, DAYS & TIME have no relevance without human history; it is irrelevant to all other life forms, except humans with speech and able to record history and the universe.
|
I see no conflict between science and creationism. Science deals with the 'relative' physical universe. There are different models of time. We create linear time in order for our consciousness to figure things out. Once we learn to go within and transcend the thought process to the source of thought, we can arrive at an absolute state of silence. And does not silence cover everything? Where is time then, where is God? You have to be honest and sincere enough to ask, where did God come from? There can only be one source. In meditation our cup can be completely emptied out of everything we think we know and have been taught, beyond consciousness in an absolute state of silence. Yet latent within this Void, is the infinitude of everything. I Am That I AM... An innocent intention to experience. This source has to reside within us and every level of infinite creation. When our awareness is completely in the moment, time is not necessary and Oneness with All can be realized.
|
After 14 Bill yrs. scientists have taken us to within 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big B. What came before? The great Void of Silence/Transcendent. Liken to when you wake & look back not to recall any dreams. Where was the consciousness? It needs to dip back in-to the Absolute Stillness. It cannot be measured,yet understood, but only in hind-site! U can call that G, in an attempt to label what is beyond description. Genesis says "Let Us make man in OUR image." Plural=Many Gods of myth from which later Biblical writings by men were interpreted. Science & those Spiritually aware agree BigBangS, & the Creation of Multiple UniverseS happens on it's own. Fast forward evolution of Consciousness to planet Earth=out of the ethers of spirit/Thought= the One Hebrew God, is one of 12 who created the different bloodlines of the now diff. races=we fight wars as they. With abilities to be physical & non we have their genetic codings. Higher levels of Consciousness created the Biblical God.
|
Plural=Many Gods of myth from which later Biblical writings by men were interpreted."
This is not so. The VERB [create/make] is in the singular. The WE refers to other life forms, already created before humans, as witness. Also, a plural would contradict all other laws in the same source if read incorrectly. The greatest grammar is in the Hebrew bible.
|
i "HEARD"that the age of our ever expanding universe is some billion years old but if you count from the center of the universe we are still in the seventh day. there is a math formula based on the speed of the universe expansion and something else. if any one has any more insight on this please post. i would like to know.
|
Still, in the first few chapters of Ezekiel, it is written, "...I have given thee a year for every day. This would mean the 7 days of creation mean 7 years. This is scientifically impossible. Even if you cite the scripture which said a day to us is a thousand days to G-d, that would make creation over a period of 7,000 years. We know it is much, much longer than that.
|
We are in the centre; the universe is the expanded centre. There is no outside of the centre. The 3-D diameter of the initial point expanded, and everything that was and is the universe is inside itself.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW applies.
|
We all were forever. Either we were an idea in His mind, or we were a physical entity; in any case, every one of us was a special thought in Go-d's mind forever. So, when my youngest son said he wasn't meant to be born (because his dad didn't want him), that was VERY incorrect, and I let him know that in no uncertain terms! To argue about ACTUAL time periods is, to me, beside the point. It is, however, a great exercise in philosophy. I don't believe at this time in our scientific knowledge we can ever agree on an answer which describes the events in a linear fashion.
|
B"H
Everything in the cosmos seems to be either a sphere, an arc, or spiral. In other words; curved. Why do we still attempt to apply linear thinking to our universe? 6000 years, yes! But the first 'Day' Must be of the metaphorical. Like standing on a set of railroad tracks; we know the tracks do not actually touch, yet the further away we look from our set position the closer they seem, until they be come a single point at the horizon of our vision. When standing on a flat plain man's horizon is only about 15 miles away. Then there's the possibility that what Moshe recorded was his view while in a vision, It is possible that what he saw was something he could only relate to as days, for his vision would've seemed that he was experiencing billions of earth years in compressed flashes. The brain could not store that much information, unless it was 'in brief' and given to him in a manner he could understand, the almost unknowable infinities involved. But I think G-d can compress time.
|
B"H
What if G-d is and always was part of OUR Soul, and Part of OUR Mind? What if it is 'WE' who are eternal in the power which "We' give to the Creator? If there weren't anyone to believe in a G-d, would there be a G-d? or even a need for such a concept? DO NOT apply linear thinking to this and you may SEE it for what it is I am suggesting. A Symbiosis beyond the conscious mind's grasp, allowing your own sub-conscious mind to grab hold of the connections. In other words, " Let Go, as though you have died." Then just BE for awhile. It is very clear beyond this horizon. What awaits us is more than anyone could fathom. Remember when we were young children and everything was still brand new, and amazing to see, touch, and smell, etc.? That would be about 1/10,000 of a % of what's coming. Yet a moment can last an eternity, & a day can seem but a moment. It is all relative. If we seem able to expand or contract time by our attitude; (vis-a-vis; Friday 3-4pm can seem like days) G-d can 2.
|
BEAUTIFUL and poetic prose~ Thanks.
|
There appears no alternative to this, and it is also the bases of some Asian beliefs. It appears everything came from the one source, and thresholds of separations were applied which cannot be broken [Genesis]. This also alihns with science when deeply considered. However, even the shakles of the separation thresholds can also act as connective bridges to the original source.
The other alternative is the premise of ex nehilo, which also requires a command - so the bottom line remains as quoted.
It is imaginable the LET THERE BE LIGHT command corresponds with Kabalistic science which says the first emanation was a ray of light, and that the premise of wisdom was initiated or deposited in this threshold. This gives an ironic deeper cadence to the deceptively sounding verse, THE WORLD [UNIVERSE] WAS CREATED IN WISDOM. This makes wisdom a place or station!
|
Distances to stars within 1000 light years
can be measured by trigonometric parallax.
Using this method, it was possible to
determine the distances of certain variable
stars called cephids and determine that
there was a direct correlation between
their luminosity and their period--the length
of time when they went from minimum to maximum brightness and then back to
minimum again. If we know the average
luminosity of a star and its apparent
brightness, we can calculate the distance
to the star and thus its true brightness since
brightness decreases as the square of
the distance.
In 1987 a supernova--the explosion of
a massive star which has exhausted the
fuel at its very center and caved in on itself
triggering an explosion in its outer layers--
was observed in a nearby galaxy, the
Large Magellanic Cloud, whose distance,
determined by its own cephid variables, is
165,000 light years away. Therefore,
the supernova took place 165,000 years
ago at least.
|
forever. No beginning and no end.
|
I am not an expert on this subject, but it does intrigue me enough to have done some research. To say that the universe is at least 165,000 years old based on distant star light requires several assumptions.
First, you assume that light has always traveled at the same speed. There are sound scientific theories that indicate that the speed of light is slowing down over time.
Second you assume that time itself is uniform. According to Einstein's theories, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances.
I am not versed in these two areas enough to explain them, but perhaps the reader can do more research on these topics.
Lastly, and more importantly - especially to the religious reader- there is an assumption that the light arrived by natural means. Is G-d limited by the natural laws of his own creation?
|
I, too, find myself looking up online various topics that are mentioned on these Chabad.org sites, and have become much more informed than I had been before getting involved blogging here. What is interesting to me is that Judaism seeks to get involved with all things in all areas and have a final Rabbinical conclusion in that area. I have to chuckle, because when I was a child, I tried to have my own get together of Jewish children to discuss and vote on whether or not we begat babies like our friend (NOT Jewish) said her parents did in order to have a baby. We discussed the issue and came up with a Jewish conclusion. This was a vote saying we DO NOT have babies the same way that Gentiles do, because we would NEVER!!!! We then gave our "Rabbinical" conclusion to the matter. This non Jewish friend said to go home and ask our parents. EVERY one of us was shocked! After all, we Rabbinically voted and decided! Hurumph! So, this question itself reminds me of my childhood. Smile.
|
Genesis says light is the first thing which emerged from the mush [formless void]. This says light predates everything else, including eneregy and heat [which science sees as the cause of light]. Of note we measure the universe's age by light residues; it has a transcendent velosity of all moving products and is ageless [oldest?] and massless [before anything else eerged?]..
These kind of questions determine the veracity or lacking in the Hebrew bible, or where science has made errors. It's a credibility factor.
|
There must be a balance between the energy released by thermonuclear fusion at the center of the star and the star's gravity
which holds it together. The energy
released by fusion is:
E = delta_m * c ** 2 where c is the speed
of light and delta m is the difference in
mass between the all of the light atoms
before they are fused into heavier ones
and all of the heavy atoms resulting from
fusion. If c had a larger value the resulting
energy releasd would cause the star to
explode. This is exactly what happens
when a massive star goes supernova;
fusion reactions at the center stop; the
core collapses under its own weight, and
the heat released by compression of the
outer layers as they fall onto the colllapsing
core triggers thermonuclear reactions in
the middle and outer layers which blow
the star apart. You need to study some
basic physics.
|
Do you think science will, in the future, find out more knowledge than even that? What I find humorous is that Judaism seeks to horn in on ALL questions of ALL times in ALL areas and give it ALL a spiritual slant. Very interesting, to say the least.
|
In fact, I just read that there is a daily prayer we are to say which includes the phrase, "Thank you, G-d, for your belief (in us)". So, during times when we don't even believe in HIm, we are to remember that it's ok because He still believes in us and has faith in us.
|
B"H
Reality is not all that it is cracked up to be. In an earlier life; I believed in Santa, the easter bunny, and an invisible super-hero, a giant god-man who threw lightning bolts, and had fire in his eyes. Physics is a science which analyzes the effects of HaShem's passing by. Like a wave at the ocean, we study the water, the salts & minerals, the form and it's rise; yet they forget that the pulse, or swirl of energy, which left the wave as an effect, had already passed by. It happened so quickly that it preceeded the wave by (what?) 1,000 yrs, or so; possibly even tommorrow? Physicists use the figure 'c' (speed of light) as a constant in defining energy. But this is not necessarily the exact velocity of energy, which could be travelling much, much faster. Bohr envisioned the atom and drew us a picture, we then built machines that were designed specifically to see it the same way. We seem to make things fit to our thoughts so we can feel in control. Thought is Energy, YHVH is more
|
for once i would like to see an unbiased objective analysis of the scientific and religious knowledge to honestly arrive at a conclusion that is objective as possible.
While reading this article i clearly get the sense that the agenda is to prove Judaism's point of view without an honest appraisal of both sides to arrive to the truth. This is typical of every orthodox website i have come across. How disappointing.
|
Not a bad article, but if one wants to read a very cogent, deeply learned and fastidiously referenced discussion of the age of the Universe see: The age of the Universe, A Torah True perspective, by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. This is the text of a speech given to the Asociation of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, Feb 18th, 1979. You don't need to trash evolutionary theory to find consistency with Torah. One could also take into consideration consideration the description by Rabbi Hertz, former chief rabbi of Great Britain, who in the preface to the Soncino second edition (1975) of the Pentateuch and haftorahs, describes Bereshit as a "majestic summary" of creation, where ages untold may have elapsed betwen the calling of matter into being and the reduction of chaos to ordered arrangement. This view is suported in Maarechus Elokus (among others). Kaplan also reminds us that in all these cases there no p'sak in matters of Hashkafah (as opposed to Halakah).
|
Every line of thought I've seen to this date, including the article I just had some great pleasure to read, uses common argument and, therefore, leads to one common conclusion - we do not really know - hence - the answer could be anything - hence - the present scientific point of view is wrong. Seems to me like there is a gap in this logic chain.
And by the way - annihilation - as physics defines it - is by no means transformation of something into nothing. We've got a great bunch of photons as the result.
|
All evidences say the uni is finite, making the infinite premise unscientific and an unacceptable stretch of wishful belief only. Science is based on evidential probabilty, not selective possibility.
One must hail a document about origins which boldly states its opening preamble the universe had a beginning. There is no scientific discussion when the preamble does not subscribe to one of two possible premiises: a finite or infite universe.
The facts are thus with an absolutely finite uiverse and the reason of its avoidance:
Evolution & the BBT go south.
There is no alternative to a Creator based universe - by the absence of any other premise being possible.
|
How do you determine the definition of "age" and WHICH universe are you speaking of? Which solar systems? How do you know there aren't more universes than the ones defined by religion OR science?
|
An attempt at using science to disprove the scientific theory of how and when the universe was created is not the best way the to go. Your unshakable belief in the Torah and Jewish tradition is the sole basis for your argument regarding the age of the universe/creation/reality. Admitting that would be better for you and your position, instead of trying to prove to people who have greater scientific knowledge and understanding. your attempt to discredit the entire field of science which was discovered by some of the most brilliant minds (many of them jewish minds) is discreditng your intelligence in the eyes of the readers with any scientific knowledge.
|
The Light, which our Torah speaks about in the phrase, ' Y'HY OhR V'Y'HY OhR' (in English; 'Let there be light and there was light." Is not talking about the light in the sense of say... the sun, or the moon. Neither is it talking about Gamma rays, nor X- rays, let alone visible light. Why? These things were created on the 4th day. So, what is this Ohr (Light)? some have said it to be the Light of the 1st soul. Others have suggested it was the formation of energy itself. There was a man I knew personally that thought the phrase was actually the Hebrew form of the equation E = Mc2. He said it was the first part Yud He Yud Alef Vav Resh; and that the 2nd part of the phrase indicated that thru Man, (or a man) it would be repeated. (Hebrew; V = #6... the day of man... then the same 6 letters are written again). I found the fact that it starts with the first 2 letters of HaShem Yud- Ke' (G-d's Holy name) to be very important. The name is a Key. (Fact: say 'key' in Spanish) Llave'
|
The evidence says Genesis is right the universe is finite. Based on this premise, other universes contradict the finite factor of this universe.
If this universe is expanding, it says it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. The only exception of other realms is it cannot contain anything which is in this universe.
|
Yes i understand light in Genesis predated the luminosity mentioned of the 4th day BTW, the sun & moon was not referred to here, only their light/luminosity - whereby the earth-sun ratio was apprarently altered. Thus life is new on earth.
I see Genesis declaring the universe as finite in its opening verse, the correct place for this preamble, namely there was a beginning. Imho many sages too erred here when referring to multi-universes, rendering the first verse as superfluous and life on earth as not a unique occurence. At the very least, the current status quo makes my position correct.
|
The first recording the uni is billions of years old is in Genesis - namely the separation factors listed before life emerged.
The BBT theory cannot stand up to correct science & logic. Genesis is correct the first entity could not be a pristine one: 'MAN & WOMEN CREATED HE THEM' - refers to a 'duality'. This says the BBT could not have initiated with an irreducible, indivisible singular entity. No actions are possible with ONE - and ONE does not exist in the universe.
Evolution is unscientific: it says a car must have a car maker but a pineapple does not need a pineapple maker. Why so, when both exhibit complex engineering? If complexity occurs by itself then there is no requirement for science.
|
Every letter, every marking in the Torah what they want it to say and justify it with wise sounding and spiritual significance. We can't prove those explanations to be false or true. Let's just say that some people believe it and some don't. This is an interesting topic as it is qualified by saying "according to Judaism". This, in itself, is not descriptive, however, because many people see Judaism as being different from Chassidic interpretation. So, Rabbi Tzvi's answer is of course based on his perspective. In order to maintain his ideas, he has to put down other people's ideas. This is a given and, to me, totally expected. I do, however, applaud Rabbi Tzvi on allowing us to state our own opinions on the matter. Although we may not always agree, I find his explanations to be indicative of his point of view. So, they are explanatory. Not an answer, however. Just explanatory.
|
Its also not about belief or preferential conclusions. Its about literary comprehension when there is no other reading of a text possible. Examples:
Genesis opens with the universe [heavens/starless space] and earth, constituting the universe, as having a beginning. Considering that no other entities exist at this point, not even laws, darkness or light, which appears later [as per its textual narrative] - what other reading is possible than that the universe is finite?
The same applies to the anticipatory seperation actions listed before the advent of life [ light from darkness; water from land; etc] - as constituting billions of years as the age of the universe.
Genesis' listing of life form groups by terrain and habitat also marks the first introduction of life form species.
These are the first recordings of those issues, constituting their introductions to humanity, not seen elsewhere. Which part is spin, as inferred - with no acknowledgeent of its vindication today?
|
B"H
Let (Yud) = to allow, to release, to accelerate (c2)
There be (He'-Yud) = existence, mass (M)
Light (Alef-Vav-Resh)= luminousity, emission, power, energy (E)
Fairly simple and straight forward.
There's a depth here that only the very, very righteous may tread, that which is hidden from me is too holy for me at this time. Perhaps, if I sweeten those judgements, sharing the Light of HaShem as much and as often as possible, I may eventually recieve more of the hidden manna. I praise HaShem each day that He made all of you who you are today. Blessings to all.
|
According to Genesis, light appeared first, before stars. Indeed the sun could not produce light if it was not already pre-existant.
The light appears to be made vision-friendly via reflection of mass when emited by the sun. V14 says of the 4th day that only
luminosity [vision-friendly light] was created at this point. It begs the question why should light be vision-friendly when no eyes yet exist?
This also says that all the seperation factors listed in Genesis before life emerged were anticipatory actions to life.
Genesis also says all life forms were completed but yet not alive - they needed a trigger to be aive, as in a completed car requiring an ignition key. Thus the completed life forms were activated when the life cycle began in Ch.2. [Rain, etc]
These are all 100% scientific premisis.
|
You must understand that if you come from a beginning position that what you are reading is infallible, then you are correct that it is as written. Not everyone reads the same words you do and believes them to be the "truth". So, according to Chassidic Judaism, where everyone believes the Torah to be infallible, the Torah is the all in all and is G-d's word to us for how we live our lives and also is the answer to all things celestial and scientific. I am not a Chassidic Jew, Iam. Therefore, I do not come from this beginning state of being of belief. Neither do I disbelieve. I am open to new discoveries, and take all printed words with a grain of salt. People who strictly believe do not think it is possible to put more emphasis on one part of the Torah than another. I do not strictly believe. Therefore, to you this is truth. To me, the answers are what you call spin. What is true to you is true. What is logical to me is logical. You and I are two different types of Jewish people
|
Objectivity is a mitzvah. Torah is what He is. But how could it be applied in daily modern life? The black and white of a written document seldom addresses the grey areas of life let alone the rainbow of colors ,which I percieve it to be.The question at hand in this thread though; is about the age of the Universe. to this I would say that it depends upon how one understands time, and which time reference one uses. Whether a poetic or a literal 'Day' (yom), or eras, ages, etc.I use the train track theory (the paralax view) where time appears to be constant while experiencing it, yet, when looking backward or forward toward some distant horizon, time seems irrelevant and a billion years worth of development may as well have been squeezed into a 24 hr period. I don't know I wasn't there then. I can only be here and right now. Regardless of my objectivity right or wrong. You and I agree on much. Chassid only means 'devout', and Chabad means 'Joy'. Are you not devoutly Joyous?
|
Nothing to do with Chabad or religion. I'm not reigious. Judaism, unlike Chritianity & Islam, is not a belief based religion - it is law based, as with science & math. [ 'Come let us reason together'].
That the uni is finite is scientifically evidenced today; man is indeed made of dust [what else!] etc. One cannot place the Hebrew bible as just another religious document - that is shortsighted. You have not countered anything in Genesis with credibility, nor have others here.
The Hebrew bile is the word's most mysterious document humanity possesses, of its time and today. I want someone to answer how Adam is the first recorded name, exact to its day & year?
|
|
| |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
