Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 1 of 133 (340390)
08-15-2006 8:33 PM


The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
Since Genesis was written in Old Hebrew - as opposed to Modern Hebrew - and its author(s) and redactors didn't have the words to express themselves scientifically, then why is everyone trying to prove this simple aggadhic tale to be right or wrong?
Let's examine the Hebrew text of Genesis and read this simple narrative as an aggadhic tale, rather than a Theological Manifesto or a Science Textbook. Then we can place the Genesis account next to the various geological ages to see if there's really any conflict with science or not.
The First Eon of Genesis....
Let me try and break this material down by examining the Hebrew text of Genesis, okay?
We read that in the beginning ELOHIM (i.e., the plural form of the Hebrew word meaning "power") fashioned (bara), not created ex nihilo (out of nothing), the heavens (expanses) and the earth (eretz = matter).
We further read that this matter (eretz) was without form and unfilled. Darkness (choshek) was on the surface of an abyss (tehom). The Hebrew word tehom is used of "waves" and poetically of the sound these "waves" make. It can also allude to a "deep hollow" or a "large quantity of water," probably because "deep hollows" was where the ancient Nomads of the Middle East often found water, eh?
Dare we read "heavens" (plural) as including or alluding to the multiverse (i.e., layers of expanses)...?
The Hebrew word is certainly flexible enough to support that interpretation. Why? Because this narrative is a Jewish aggadah and it's perfectly acceptable in Judaism for an aggadhic tale to be interpreted in more than one way! More on this latter....
The Hebrew word for "earth" (eretz) is not limited to terra firma or this particular planet. It is flexible enough to mean "matter," like dirt or soil of which there is more than one kind, no? Let's not be so quick to force a single interpretation upon these Hebrew words.
The Hebrew word for "darkness" (choshek) is pretty cut and dry. However, we're not limited here to reading this word as merely alluding to the dark void of space. One might read this as an allusion to Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy Again, let's not be so quick to force a single interpretation upon these Hebrew words.
In like fashion, the word "abyss" (tehom) could be taken as alluding to the waves of background radition in the universe or the particles of H2O present in the universe or the expanse of the universe itself.
Notice that all these things are already present and all that the Genesis account is saying here is that "powers" (ELOHIM) took these primordial elements, if you will, and through whatever mechanism or process gave them form.
This interpretation would also allow for the Steady State Theory or Quasi-Steady State Cosmology or just about anything else you want to throw out there. Why? Because of the flexibility of the Hebrew words and the simplicity of the aggadhic narrative.
Where is this in conflict with the various scientific theories being advanced? All I'm saying is that the Hebrew words used here in Genesis, which lack the ability to express scientific notions, are vague, ambiguous and flexible enough to jive with whatever science has to say about the early formation of our universe.
cont. The First Eon of Genesis....
The Genesis text states that the Spirit of ELOHIM (lit. "wind of powers") brooded over the face (surface) of the waves of the abyss (tehom) of the universe.
What was the result of this "Wind of Powers" brooding upon these waves? Perhaps this caused the Big Bang or one of the other theories. What the Hebrew text tells us is that the "powers" (ELOHIM) said, "Let there be light and there was light."
The Hebrew word used here for "light" is "or," which lacks a locative Hebrew letter "mem," which in Hebrew would fix a "source" and "location" for this light. So, the text could be talking about "luminescence" as opposed to "incandescence." This "luminescence" would have stood in contrast to the darkness (choshek).
Either way, and whatever new theories scientists are advancing these days, we're pobably talking about the evening (dark beginning) of the pre-Hadean cosmos and the morning (bright ending) of the Hadean Eon (etc), during which time our solar system was being formed (bara), etc.
This more or less concludes the First Eon (yom) in the Hebrew text of Genesis. Let's keep in mind that the Hebrew word yom can mean a "24-hour solar day," but it's also used for "an inclusive period of time (during which something happens)," "an age or eon (during which something happens)," "time itself" and "eternity," etc., etc., etc.
So why does the text say "evening and morning"...? In Judaism, each new day begins in the evening (rather than 2400 HRS or 12 AM). Why? Probably because we're conceived in the darkness of the womb and are born into the light of the world. Therefore, a Dark Period (evening) is seen as the beginning and a Dawning Period (morning) is seen as the beginning of the end, so to speak. Take for example the Dark Age giving way to the Age of Enlightenment. Same idea.... Evening and morning.... See? We need to view this material from a Semitic POV.
Yes, there's going to be some overlapping of the various geological ages with the so-called "creative days," which are merely periods during which things took form (bara).
What the Genesis text is calling ELOHIM literally means POWERS. This could simply be an allusion to whatever First Cause initially started this cosmic ball rolling. In other words, this could be an Intelligent Designer or it could be a nebulous, amorphous spermatic force. The Genesis text is an aggadhic narrative of the order in which things came into being and took form. So far, there's no real conflict with the Hebrew text and what science is advancing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 3:03 AM smadewell has replied
 Message 10 by duf31, posted 08-16-2006 2:16 PM smadewell has replied
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 08-16-2006 2:37 PM smadewell has replied
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 08-19-2006 2:04 AM smadewell has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 133 (340391)
08-15-2006 8:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 133 (340427)
08-16-2006 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by smadewell
08-15-2006 8:33 PM


From my perspective it's mainly the Biblical Literalists who are concerend with proving the story as it is written. Your suggested interpretation is too far from a literal readign to satisfy them.
I would, however, suggest that your reading has flaws. To get the order "right" you have to read the text very loosely.
There are some useful comments in this recent blog entry
Page not found | ScienceBlogs. Most of the entry is quoting The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter With Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, by Rabbi Natan Slifkin
....although this approach reconciles the difference between a time span of six days and a time span of fourteen billion years, the events of those six days cannot be correlated with the scientific account of what took place during the fourteen billion years.
...some of the creations described in Genesis do not easily correlate with any known phenomena
...the sequence of events described in Genesis does not correlate with the sequence discovered by science
The last three paragraphs quoted are especially relevant, as they directly address concordism - which is the view you express in your post
This objection carreis particular weight
A more general objection to the current efforts at concordism, which involve the insights of twentieth-century science, is that they render the true meaning of Genesis as something only comprehensible to modern man....
I would add to this that so ambiguous an account can hardly be said to say anything at all. If the interpretation is so loose then it could mean may things. In other words your interpretation has more to do with what you would like it to mean than anything else - even the text itself.
f

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by smadewell, posted 08-15-2006 8:33 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 5:41 AM PaulK has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 4 of 133 (340434)
08-16-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
08-16-2006 3:03 AM


Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
With all due respect to Rabbi Natan Slifkin ... the sequence of events described in Genesis does correlate with the sequence discovered by science, as I hope to demonstrate.
With regard to those who are slavishly literal in their approach to the Sacred Text? You are correct. Nothing can satisfy them but their own claim to a universal monopoly on truth. They have ears to hear, but will not listen. So, I leave them to their own devices. I expect far more of the scientific community.
With regard to my "loose" interpretations? Hebrew is a living language and a very old one. Many words have multiple meanings. Many words have multiple meanings that cannot be separate from each other, such as emunah, which means both "faith" and "faithfulness". Also, there is tzedekah, which means "upright," "righteous" and "alms giving". It is inconceivable to the Rabbinic Mind that one could have "faith" without "faithfulness" or be called "upright" and "righteous" without also being "charitable". I could go on and on with such examples. Be that as it may, there are other words that can have a wide range of meanings and nuances and applications! The Hebrew language is by its very nature fluid and flexible. I realize the Occidental-Western mind has a real problem with this.
ELOHIM is the plural form of the Hebrew word EL, which means "might, strength, power". Our animistic ancestors looked at the "forces" present in nature and made gods of them, right? And so, an EL (i.e., power) was regarded as a "strong force of nature."
Yes, interpreting ELOHIM as alluding to primordial or pre-existent POWERS might be unsettling to some, but the Hebrew word itself allows for this interpretation. Far from being loose! This interpretation conveys the very essence of the word itself as it came to be applied to the First Cause, per the ancient Hebrews' nascent understanding of the Divine, not as a mere Tribal Deity of the Israelites, but as the Master of the Universe.
Where is the term POWERS in conflict with science as regards the Quasi-Steady State Theory or the Big Bang Theory or any of the Non-Standard Models? Surely there was some dynamic or energetic force at work in the formation of our universe, no?
Likewise, the Hebrew word bara means "to form". How is this a loose interpretation? A truly loose interpretation would be ex nihilo (out of nothing), because it goes far beyond the essence of the word which has to do with "taking that which already exists and giving it new form and shape."
Further, the word shamayim (KJV = heaven) means "expanses" because this word is in the plural form. If we can use shamayim to speak of the layered expanses of Earth's atmosphere and the expanse of the Universe and even use it as a reverential term for the name of the Divine (i.e., YHVH), while taking into account that the "heavens and heavens of heavens" cannot contain ELOHIM (1 Kings 8:27), then why not use shamayim (heavens) to describe the "multiverse," especially since the very context of Genesis 1:1f is addressing cosmology!? The very essence of this word forces one to recognizes a "multiplicity of expanses." In what way is this a "loose" interpretation?
I'd like to think I've taken some care in moving away from the King James Version of the text and placed the Hebrew words of Genesis back into their proper historical, linguistic and cultural context; thereby allowing them to address the subject of cosmology for all ages, while taking into account the fact that the ancient Hebrews didn't have a complex language to express themselves scientifically.
Specifically, where have I been too "loose" in the interpretations offered in my first post? This is not a modern "Occidental-Western" text. We cannot approach it with a rigid mindset. We must approach this material with the same degree of fluidity found in the ancient "Oriental-Middle Eastern" mindset of the Semites who wrote and redacted this material.
We really must stop treating this simple aggadhic narrative as a Theological-Religious Manifesto or as a Scientific Textbook. It's neither of these! And yet, because it is an aggadhic story we are at liberty to examine it in the light of our theological or scientific bias. That's the nature and purpose of aggadah.
Aggadah is an ancient literary and narrative tool to help us exercise (not close) our minds. Given that, I'm frankly shocked by the first three quotes you supplied from Rabbi Natan Slifkin.
Edited by smadewell, : First of many spelling corrections, I'm sure. :sigh:
Edited by smadewell, : Grammar. It's the bane of my existence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 3:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 6:17 AM smadewell has replied
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-19-2006 2:35 AM smadewell has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 133 (340438)
08-16-2006 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by smadewell
08-16-2006 5:41 AM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
If you want an example of where you are stretching much too far then your suggestion that the "darkness" of Genesis 1 is "dark matter" or "dark energy" is perfect.
The issue is not the supposed "rigidity" of the "occidental mind" but the fact that if the interpreter allows himself too much freedom to decide the meaning of the text, the text is diminished in importance perhaps to the point where the "interpretation" is primarily the invention of the "interpreter" rather than anything the author intended or even accidentally let slip. I view your attempts as tending very much towards this situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 5:41 AM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 6 of 133 (340457)
08-16-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
08-16-2006 6:17 AM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
quote:
PaulK: If you want an example of where you are stretching much too far then your suggestion that the "darkness" of Genesis 1 is "dark matter" or "dark energy" is perfect.
The Hebrew word choshek means "darkness." There are all kinds of "darkness" and the word is used of "the darkness of an underground prison" and even of the darkness of mines, where "the treasures of darkness" are found.
Darkness is the absence of light, correct? "In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light)...." So, where is this application a stretch? We are talking about cosmological darkness here, no?
Someone had better tell this lot of scientists that they're barking down the wrong mine shaft in their search for "Dark Matter" - Science in the underworld.
Further, aside from physical "darkness" the Hebrew word choshek can be used metaphorically or figuratively for that which is "negative." "In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure."
So, I can't take a Hebrew word with an established metaphorical sense to describe something that's a hypothetical "negative" in the first place? If everyone's hands were tied like that ... that'd put the kibosh on a whole lot of scientific extrapolation. That's why I maintain that the text is fluid and not rigid, fixed and stagnant. Any Orthodox Rabbi worth his peiyot would agree with me on that point. That's why the Torah is called the Living Word of YHVH. Need a pop-culture reference? Star Trek's IDIC - "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations", which is the cornerstone of Vulcan philosophy.
quote:
PaulK: The issue is not the supposed "rigidity" of the "occidental mind" but the fact that if the interpreter allows himself too much freedom to decide the meaning of the text, the text is diminished in importance perhaps to the point where the "interpretation" is primarily the invention of the "interpreter" rather than anything the author intended or even accidentally let slip. I view your attempts as tending very much towards this situation.
Again, the purpose of an aggadhic narrative is to serve as a tool to exercise our minds, not close them or lead us to state, "I would add ... that so ambiguous an account can hardly be said to say anything at all."
I'm not very good at crossword puzzles and pretty much keep away from them, but I'd never say that they were fruitless, because as difficult and seemingly trivial as they might be to me ... they do help one to exercise their noodle.
One doesn't have to like Jewish aggadah. One can eschew it at all costs. However, it serves a purpose and ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder. The purpose of aggadah is to exercise one's mind - not close it. There would have been no Targumim (Aramaic translations of the Sacred Text) or Mishnah or Gemara or Talmud (et al) had the sages not made use of aggadhot and the exegetical "keys" they derived from their mental gymnastics. And yet, despite all their commentaries and wild extrapolations and far fetched interpretations ... the Sacred Text remains intact and no one has taken anything away from the plain meaning of the original author and the redactors who followed.
You have to understand that in Judaism one may doubt the existence of God, but one may not deny the existence of God. In like manner, one may doubt that miracles happen, but one may not deny that they happen. Similarly, one may doubt the accuracy of another's exegesis, but one may not deny the validity of another's interpretation, because the Sacred Text has many layers of meaning.
This is why, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., a Heavenly Voice ruled in favor of the interpretations of Jewish Law espoused by the plebeian School of Hillel over against the exegesis of the patrician School of Shammai, while at the same time announcing that both interpretations were the Word of God and totally valid and that Jewish Law would again be practiced according to the rulings of the Shammaites in the World to Come.
My primary argument isn't pro-concordism, but rather pro-aggadah. The Genesis text is a simple aggadhic narrative and must be approached as such before one can even begin to present a case for concordism. Proving concordism is not my agenda! What I'm doing here is presenting a mental exercise in aggadah.
So, BTW, just how is this "darkness" in Gen. 1:2 - or anything else I've presented thus far - in conflict with what science tells us about the primordial or "pre-existent" universe? How does this "darkness" constitute a non-concordance with what science is advancing about cosmology?
Edited by smadewell, : Same ole same ole.... Two left thumbs.
Edited by smadewell, : DOH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 6:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 9:47 AM smadewell has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 133 (340459)
08-16-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by smadewell
08-16-2006 9:03 AM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
I don't beleive that you are even doing aggadah correctly.
What you are doin is taking a word out of context, offering an intepretation thagt is more than strained even without context and trying to suggest that that is a valid method of reading a text.
quote:
Darkness is the absence of light, correct? "In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light)...." So, where is this application a stretch? We are talking about cosmological darkness here, no?
I don't beleive that Genesis is talking about cosmological darkness.
And obviously dark matter is not darkness any more than the walls of the prison are darkness.
quote:
Someone had better tell this lot of scientists that they're barking down the wrong mine shaft in their search for "Dark Matter"
This makes no sense. IF you are trying to suggest that dark matter really is darkness and that is the reason why they put their detectors in mineshafts then you're dead wrong.
quote:
Further, aside from physical "darkness" the Hebrew word choshek can be used metaphorically or figuratively for that which is "negative." "In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure."
i.e. it is quite distinct from darkness and dark matter, the reason or calling it "darkness" is completely different - and of course hte reference is only possibly meaningful to people who know what dark energy is. (And of course if it was discovered that dark energy didn't exist you would drop the interpretation completely - because all you are trying to do is read what you want into the text, instead of simply reading the text).
quote:
So, BTW, just how is this "darkness" in Gen. 1:2 - or anything else I've presented thus far - in conflict with what science tells us about the primordial or "pre-existent" universe?
I didn't say that it was. And if it means anything you want it to mean it can't be in conflict with anything unless you want it to be. Of course if you read it in context then it is the "night" part of the day/night cycle which really isn't part of the "primordial" universe at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 9:03 AM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 1:00 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 11 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 8 of 133 (340510)
08-16-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
08-16-2006 9:47 AM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
quote:
PaulK: I don't beleive that you are even doing aggadah correctly. What you are doin is taking a word out of context, offering an intepretation thagt is more than strained even without context and trying to suggest that that is a valid method of reading a text.
Are you Jewish? Have you attended an Orthodox Yeshiva? Have you ever read the Rabbinic Literature? How many times do the sages say, "Read not the word as 'such-and-such,' but rather as 'this-and-that'," in order to justify their complete reinterpretation of the verse, while going far beyond the context and the plain meaning (peshat) of the text in question...? Do you understand what PaRDeS is? Ever read the proof texts used for the Zohar's cosmological speculations?
You're more than entitled to your belief, but if you're suggesting that one cannot take the words that comprise the plain meaning (peshat) of the Sacred Text and from them extrapolate a new meaning, then I suggest your understanding of the aggadhic approach to exegesis is deficient. You decry the literalists approach and then tie the hands of one who would offer an alternative to a peshatic approach?
What's you're real beef here, PaulK? What's your bias? Honestly, this is why I have a problem with both the Church and its detractors. They use the same tools against each other and anyone else who comes along with a different POV.
You see, AdminPD? This is why I wanted to proclaim my bias at the very outset, so we could avoid protracted squabbling with people who have their own agenda and wish to derail a Jewish approach to this aggadhic narrative.
Edited by smadewell, : UGH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 9:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 1:06 PM smadewell has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 133 (340512)
08-16-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by smadewell
08-16-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
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.e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 1:00 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

duf31
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 133 (340526)
08-16-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by smadewell
08-15-2006 8:33 PM


Hi smadewell,
I'm new here, in fact I joined specifically to reply to your opening post because I've also often thought in the same direction. However I had some difficulties with registration and only managed to get online now.
I don't know anything about aqqadah but I certainly wouldn't stretch my interpretations as far as you do. I'd agree with PaulK that Dark Matter is a bit too much. You say:
All I'm saying is that the Hebrew words used here in Genesis, which lack the ability to express scientific notions, are vague, ambiguous and flexible enough to jive with whatever science has to say about the early formation of our universe.
but the impression one gets is that they are vague, ambiguous and flexible enough to jive with just about whatever anyone cares to say about the early creation of the universe.
But here's my take on it.
We read that in the beginning ELOHIM (i.e., the plural form of the Hebrew word meaning "power") fashioned (bara), not created ex nihilo (out of nothing), the heavens (expanses) and the earth (eretz = matter).
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'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.
Edited by duf31, : No reason given.
Edited by duf31, : to correct spelling (and previous edit!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by smadewell, posted 08-15-2006 8:33 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 3:27 PM duf31 has replied
 Message 16 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 4:43 PM duf31 has not replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 11 of 133 (340531)
08-16-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
08-16-2006 9:47 AM


Re: Occidental vs. Oriental = Rigidity vs. Fluidity.
quote:
smadewell: Darkness is the absence of light, correct? "In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light)...." So, where is this application a stretch? We are talking about cosmological darkness here, no?
quote:
PaulK: This makes no sense. IF you are trying to suggest that dark matter really is darkness and that is the reason why they put their detectors in mineshafts then you're dead wrong.
No, PaulK. I mentioned these scientists and their mineshaft quest for "Dark Matter" as an overly veiled remez (allusion) to the phrase "otzar choshek" (treasure of darkness) mentioned in Isaiah 45:3. In other words, the "treasure" these scientists were seeking in the "darkness" of their underground "hiding place" (mis'tar) was "Dark Matter". That is to say, they were hoping to ambush (cf. Psa. 10:9), if you will, a particle (or particles) of "Dark Matter" from their underground "hiding place" (mis'tar). I apologize for pulling this overly veiled allusion on you. I often forget that such allusions escape people.
I'm fully aware that "Dark Matter" is not "visible darkness." :sigh:
quote:
PaulK: I don't beleive that Genesis is talking about cosmological darkness.
As stated before, you're entitled to your belief. 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? Either we need to find some common ground PDQ or just agree to disagree and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 9:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2006 6:31 PM smadewell has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 133 (340536)
08-16-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by smadewell
08-15-2006 8:33 PM


Maybe I missed it, but just to clarify: Do you believe that Genesis was "inspired", dictated, etc. by God? That is, do you believe it to be the "word of God" or the work of men?
If it was written by men, wouldn't it make more sense to understand what they intended to communicate, rather than what the words concievably could mean? Did the authors have "God-breathed" knowledge of dark matter, etc.? If not, why even go there?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by smadewell, posted 08-15-2006 8:33 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 4:17 PM ringo has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 13 of 133 (340546)
08-16-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by duf31
08-16-2006 2:16 PM


quote:
duf31: but the impression one gets is that they are vague, ambiguous and flexible enough to jive with just about whatever anyone cares to say about the early creation of the universe.
BINGO! Give that poster a cigar or a cookie! That's what I've been trying to say! The purpose of an aggadhic tale is to provide the mind with an exercise yard to play and learn and grow in. The text retains its plain meaning (peshat). That never changes. Let me try to break this Jewish approach down for everyone.
Hillel the Elder was a plebeian Separatist sage of the Common Era. Hillel and his disciples were members of the "School of Prophets," which was enjoying a renaissance during this time - in no small part due to the exegetical "keys of the Kingdom" these Separatists were using to explore the many layers of meaning within the Sacred Text.
Yes, there was a mystical component to their studies; however, the word qabalah simply means "to receive; to accept" and needs to be distinguished from the body of mystical literature created by the Kabbalists leading up to and during the Middle Ages.
The word PaRDeS means "a walled garden" and eventually became an acronym for the four categories of interpretation:
Peshat = The literal meaning; the contextual, philological level.
Remez = The allegorical meaning; cross-reference to other texts; rational or philosophical level.
Derash = The moral or homiletic meaning; aggadhic level; midrashic level, i.e., the interpretation via derash.
Sod = The mystical or anagogic meaning.
Hillel employed Seven Exegetical Keys to open up the many layers of meaning within the Sacred Text and thereby derive justification for his halakhot (religio-legal rulings), etc.
Doubtless, these are the same exegetical "keys of the Kingdom" that the historical Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus) gave to his own disciples. How do we know these "keys" had anything to do with exegesis? Yeshua said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). The words "to bind" and "to loose" are rabbinic terms meaning "to forbid" something and "to permit" something where a religio-legal ruling (halakah) is concerned. Yeshua was simply giving his disciples the exegetical tools they needed to argue their case where halakhic matters were concerned and thereby have the ability to establish halakhot that no one could refute.
It was by meditating upon the Sacred Text, which they had memorized, and thereby taking exegetical journeys through the "walled garden" of PaRDeS that these men gained new insights; receiving direct inspiration from the Agent of Revelation, the Holy Spirit.
Just as the desert wind blows away the sand from the valley floor to reveal the rocks that had hitherto been obscured from sight, so too the Divine Wind reveals what lies under the surface of the plain meaning of the text.
It doesn't matter whether you and I believe this or not. THEY BELIEVED IT! It's their literature! All I'm doing is employing their techniques to make extrapolations. This is a perfectly acceptable approach in rabbinic circles. I'm taking nothing away from the plain meaning of the Genesis text. It's going to remain there regardless of how much I fiddle with it and the plain meaning of the text is going to be around long after I'm dead and buried.
In fact, the only safe way to take one of these exegetical journeys into the "walled garden" of PaRDeS is to enter and exit through the door of peshat (i.e., the plain meaning of the text). Sadly, most non-Jews seem to have a real problem with the existence of this "walled garden." Why is that?
Why is this approach so unacceptable? The Jewish sages have been doing this for centuries upon centuries? Perhaps this is why the Orthodox community hang with their own. I submit that any problems with this approach stem from an Occidental bias against this Oriental, nay, Jewish way of thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by duf31, posted 08-16-2006 2:16 PM duf31 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by duf31, posted 08-16-2006 5:14 PM smadewell has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 14 of 133 (340555)
08-16-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
08-16-2006 2:37 PM


quote:
Ringo: Maybe I missed it, but just to clarify: Do you believe that Genesis was "inspired", dictated, etc. by God? That is, do you believe it to be the "word of God" or the work of men?
It doesn't matter what I believe. I'm approaching this text as an aggadhic tale and using rabbinic methods of exegesis to make some "modern" extrapolations. Love your avatar, BTW!
quote:
Ringo: If it was written by men, wouldn't it make more sense to understand what they intended to communicate, rather than what the words concievably could mean?
Yes, it would, if I were approaching Genesis purely from the plain meaning (peshat) of the text and examing its historical origins (etc), which I'm not.
quote:
Ringo: Did the authors have "God-breathed" knowledge of dark matter, etc.? If not, why even go there?
Even the rabbinic sages agreed that the original authors didn't fully understand that what they were writing would hold deeper levels of meaning and even inspired entirely new layers of meaning for future generations.
There is an aggadhic tale that says, "When Moses ascended to heaven he found the Holy One 'crowning' the letters of the Sacred Text with tagin (decorative spurs). When Moses asked YHVH what that was all about the Holy One informed him that in a time to come a scholar named Akiba would arise who would expound upon even these 'tittles' and use them to establish religio-legal rulings."
Ringo, do you believe this rabbinic story? Kind of difficult to swallow, huh? Well, the story is just a "vehicle" and the "ride" it took you on isn't what's important. The "destination" is what's important and that "destination" is for the listener to realize that the smallest letter yod in the Hebrew Alef-Bet and even the tagin or decorative spurs (i.e., the jot and tittle of Matt. 5:18) is important, because even these can be used to exegete something of value from the Sacred Text. See?
Welcome to Aggadah 101. Why go there? Because as I have stated more than once ... this is a mental exercise. That's the purpose of aggadah.
Edited by smadewell, : Ugh! Can't spell worth a shoot!
Edited by smadewell, : link correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 08-16-2006 2:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-16-2006 4:27 PM smadewell has replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 08-16-2006 6:27 PM smadewell has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 133 (340556)
08-16-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by smadewell
08-16-2006 4:17 PM


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

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 4:17 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by smadewell, posted 08-16-2006 5:01 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024