By Tzvi Freeman
 |
108 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.
|
|
| |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
