The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?

quote:

---

duf31: I think that one of the more appealing aspects of the Biblical creation story is that, in Christian tradition at least and unlike so many other such stories, it does have ex-nihilo creation by a God who is All that there Is. After all, the state of science today is such that that's the only bit left for God to do, the rest follows naturally by more or less well-known laws. Imposing these laws does fit very nicely with the words "fashioned" and "powers" though, doesn't it?

---

I wouldn't stretch bara to mean ex nihilo, but that's me and I'm biased because I lean toward the Quasi-Steady State Theory, but I'm by no means married to it. Just being honest. Can bara be stretched to mean ex nihilo? Sure! Why not!?

quote:

---

duf31: I've always thought that the "without form" bit is a very nice description of the early quark-gluon soup, and, rather than interpreting the "dark" as Dark Matter, I'd stretch it to "opaque" since in this era the photons wouldn't travel very far before giving rise to a particle-antiparticle pair. So the Universe would appear dark from the outside, except that it doesn't have an outside

​

Of course, this is just setting up for the next verse, since "Let there be light" fits beautifully with the transition to a transparent universe at around 300,000 years after the big bang. That must have been an awesome sight, if there was anyone around to see it.

​

True? Who knows? But poetic.

---

Interesting! Very interesting indeed. I wouldn't presume to dispute your take on this. It's a perfectly acceptable observation and use of the text.Of course, the text itself says that there are two divisions of time during this First Eon of Genesis. There's the dark beginning, which could allude to a time before(?) or during the "early quark-gluon soup" phase and the bright ending period that takes us on up to the early Hadean Eon in our own solar systems formation. Well done!

quote:

---

I always thought the purpose of aggadah is to teach us how to laugh at our own foolishness.

---

Yes, that's what most Christians, non-Jews, minim/apikorsim (heretics) and chilonim (Secular Jews) think. A general observation or were you trolling?

No trolling at all.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

No actually it is you who is doing the same thing as the literalists. You take the text and try to force it to say what you want it to say - just as they do.
My bias is for honesty - which means admitting the truth that your "readings" have very little to do with the actual text - which is there to provide only the flimsiest pretext for what you want it to say.

---

What part of the title of my original post "The Aggadah of Genesis" did you not understand, PaulK? I was honest from the very beginning. I'm approaching this text as an aggadhic tale.Cue Strother Martin's line from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is ... failure to communicate." My bad. :sigh:

Thanks for the kudos but I wasn't really agreeing with you. What I meant to say is that a statement that can mean anything in actual fact means nothing. Nada. Zilch. Like numerology or (dare I say it?) the prophecies of Nostradamus.If you mean that the statements are deliberately open so as to stimulate speculative, creative thought, a kind of brainstorming aid, then that's fine by me. But that doesn't mean that the statement itself has to carry any meaning. Nor that all statements derived from them are meaningful. Look at Zen after all.The point I'm making is that the fact that you can stretch those words to fit the revelations of modern science does not mean that those words are in any way special, because you can stretch them any which way so they mean what you want them to mean. Viewing things this way puts quite a different spin on your statement: Edited by duf31, : to correct typo. Why cant I get things right first time?

quote:

---

jar: No trolling at all.

---

Whew! Glad to hear it.Here's a link to the Interpretation of the Aggadah for those who didn't read that far down in the wikipedia link I posted to aggadah.Laugh if you must.

quote:

---

duf31: Thanks for the kudos but I wasn't really agreeing with you. What I meant to say is that a statement that can mean anything in actual fact means nothing. Nada. Zilch.

---

LOL! A Slide Rule means nothing to me. Nada. Zilch. I haven't a clue how to use one. Same goes for a sextant. Yet, I wouldn't presume to post on a rocket scientist or nautical forum stating, "Hey! Your slide rule or sextant talk means nothing to me. Nada. Zilch."One man's treasure is another man's trash. One finds meaning where one will. As you said, "a kind of brainstorming aid."

quote:

---

duf31: The point I'm making is that the fact that you can stretch those words to fit the revelations of modern science does not mean that those words are in any way special....

---

Who said they were? Maybe you guys have been hammering Christian Fundamentalists too long and think everyone who dares address anything remotely "biblical" is out to "prove that the Bible is the absolute inerrant Word of God," which means, according to Christendom, y'all are going to Hell in a handbasket. LOL!I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN! I'M NOT A MUSLIM! I'M NOT JEWISH! I'm just a student of comparative religions. I'm not an Atheist or an Agnostic, but neither do I have any affiliation with any religious faith or group. Yes, I have some knowledge of Jewish History and Judaism and I'd like to think I've got a pretty good handle on the "Rabbinic Mind"; however, I'm not out to prove anything here other than the fact that Genesis can be read as an aggadhic tale and that with or without getting too wild and far fetched ... the general order of the "formation" as described in Genesis can jive with the various theories being offered up by science. :heavy sigh: Take it or leave it.

Actually, no, it isn't hard to swallow at all. I have less trouble with the obviously-fictional than I do with the probably-fictional that some people ask us to take literally. Actually, no again, I don't quite see. You call it a "Sacred Text" and yet you say it doesn't matter what you believe.Are you saying that Treasure Island or Watership Down could be approached in the same way? Is there "deeper, broader meaning" in them that the authors didn't know about but future generations will recognize? I like yours too. I look a little bit like mine. Do you look anything like yours?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So your reference to mineshafts was just another interpretation so strained that nobody could be reasonably be expected to wrok out what you mean. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

quote:

---

Hmmm. The darkness (choshek) of Genesis, a story that deals specifically with the origins of the universe and the formation of life on Earth, has nothing to do with cosmology, eh? Okay.... Are you pulling my leg here or just trolling?

---

Absolutely not. Since I do not try to interpret Genesis with the preconcived idea that it must be in some sense "literally" true as you and the Inerrantists - listeralist or concordist - do I am free to look at what the text is saying. And the text tells us that the seperation of ligth from darkness is the creation of day and night - which coincides with the first day. The best reading then, is that this is intended to refer to the establishment of the day/night cycle. This is consistent with the idea turning up later that the sun and moon are created later to "rule" the day and night respectively, strengthening that interpretation.t

I think your problem is that I DID understand your OP. Your intent was to argue that by treating Genesis as aggadah (you could show that there was no conflict with science.THus you need to show to things:1) That aggadah really permits the sort of "interpretation" that you are using.2) Why this has anything to do with the question of whether there is a conflict with science.I suspect that the answer to the first is "no" - even the wikipedia page that you keep citing says that there are rules to this sort of interpretation, although you offer none that permit the liberties you are prepared to take with the text.The answer to the second is clearer. Simply playing intellectual games with the text, straining the meaning past breaking-point to get it to say what you want shows only the lengths you will go to to deny that there is a conflict. If there is a connection it seems to be that you beleive that there is a conflict with science that cannot be resolved in any reasonable way. f

Wow, I seem to have hit some kind of chord there. Calm down, and stop waving your hands like the girlie in YOUR piccy.You conclude your opening post with: What's the point of showing this?If the Hebrew Genesis is an aggadhic text (as I understand the term from the last few posts to this thread), why does it have to relate to modern science? Are you suggesting that agghadic reflection can make a contribution to modern science? If so, isn't this likely to be in some area as yet unthought of, so that the less its compatibility with what is already known, the more likely this breakthrough will be? And if not, why bother?My point is that the extreme (mis-?)interpretations of the words in order to needlessly shoe-horn them into alignment with the buzz-words of modern science renders them completely devoid of meaning. I don't think an aggadhic text should be completely devoid of meaning, should it? Otherwise why reflect on that text in preference to any other (equally meaningless) one?Because, as explained in your own responses, the texts ARE special, they ARE meaningful, and they ARE used for valid purposes. Removing their meaning by making them mean anything only invalidates these purposes. Would you accept a set of laws based on an interpretation as wide as the one you presented in your OP?

quote:

---

Actually, no again, I don't quite see. You call it a "Sacred Text" and yet you say it doesn't matter what you believe.

​

Are you saying that Treasure Island or Watership Down could be approached in the same way? Is there "deeper, broader meaning" in them that the authors didn't know about but future generations will recognize?

---

I call it the "Sacred Text", because many Jews find the term "Old Testament" to be offensive. I could call it the TaNaK, but most non-Jews don't know what that is. I could call it the Torah, but some people limit the Torah to the First Five Books of Moses. I could call it the Masoretic Text, but again ... most non-Jews don't know what that is. I guess I could take to calling it the Hebrew Scriptures or the Jewish Bible, eh? Anyway, I call it the "Sacred Text". Why? Well, because it's pretty much a given that I'm talking about the "Jewish Bible" here in the West. Are there other Sacred Texts out there? Sure! Many religions have them.I would suppose that many novels have deeper levels to them than the authors might have initially had in mind or even thought about, no? Take "Atlas Shrugged" for example! Or, for that matter, just about any of the dystopian novels of the previous century. Could one apply aggadhic methodology to these? Sure! Hollywood has been employing aggadah in the motion picture industry for decades upon decades. Some might even argument from day one. Michael Landon would get my vote for the number one aggadhist for TV here in the US during the last century. That sort of "moralistic yarn spinning" is probably a thing of the paste. It's all going to be reality shows and crap TV from here on out. Thank Heaven for the SciFi Channel, eh? My avatar actually looks a lot like my significant other.

The word "Tanakh" is used around here - you can feel free. We also get a lot of people who think the Bible/Old-Testament/New-Testament/King-James-Version/etc. is "sacred"/carved-in-stone/written-in-God's-own-handwriting/etc., so that word will probably cause a lot more confusion than Tanakh. It appears that I have a more plebian taste in literature than you do. Lucky you.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Believe it of not there are even Non-Jews here who know the word Tanakh, and even some who have studied the Talmud, nor is aggadah completely unfamilar to many here. We often laugh at ourselves.But so far you haven't shown any compelling reason to treat the Genesis accounts as anything other than what they appear to be or that any reference to things like dark matter or energy are warranted or suggested.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

jar: But so far you haven't shown any compelling reason to treat the Genesis accounts as anything other than what they appear to be or that any reference to things like dark matter or energy are warranted or suggested.

---

I seriously doubt I'd even be able to at this point ... given the polarization that has infected just about every forum on the Internet.AdminPD, I retract my request. Please, close this thread or delete it, as you see fit. I'm tired of wasting my time.It's boils down to Bible thumpers versus Bible bashers regardless of what forum I post on. I'm flat sick and tired of the whole black and bloody business. Y'all going on with your "work" here. :heavy sigh: