Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   13th century rabbi says universe billions of years old
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 60 (777775)
02-08-2016 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by caffeine
02-06-2016 6:51 AM


These are the sort of twisted rationalisations thoughtful people are forced to when they refuse to countenance the much simpler explanation that the Torah is not literal truth.
Of course the Torah is not the literal truth, but I am not sure 'twisted rationalization' is a fair labeling. The age of the universe is of course known to us, and the fact that the earth is greater than 6000 years is also evident. We might well accuse the author of the article or rationalizing. But can such accusations readily by applied at the time of Isaac of Akko who lived the 13-14th century? I don't believe estimates of the earth's age being even in the millions of years were prevalent or scientifically based prior to the 1800s and some of those scientific estimates turned out to be bad science. So what would Isaac have been rationalizing?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by caffeine, posted 02-06-2016 6:51 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by caffeine, posted 02-12-2016 12:10 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 32 of 60 (777824)
02-09-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
02-03-2016 4:59 PM


Re: Understand the significance.
quote:
Anyway, he has found no evidence of old-earth views predating the 18th/19th (even 19th I think) century scientific revelations. Therefore this is an interesting post, and it is groundbreaking evidence if true.
... (skip)
Anyway, understand that the OP posted something that would be groundbreaking, if true (and it might be).
Old Earth view before the Eighteen Hundreds ?
Hugo St. Vincent (AD 1097 - 1141) - "Flemish scholar of the Augustinian Monastery of St. Victor and later Prior of the monastery in Paris. " - Arthur Custance
"Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering (dispositio) of it was taken in hand? For that fact that the first substance of all things arose at the very beginning of time - or rather, with time itself - is settled by the statement that, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. But how long it continued in this state of confusion, Scripture does not clearly show." - Hugo St. Vincent
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2016 4:59 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 33 of 60 (777831)
02-09-2016 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
02-03-2016 4:59 PM


Re: Understand the significance.
A (super honest and scholarly) fundamentalist named Davies has investigated the evidence for Christian and Jewish interpretations of an old earth prior to the 19th century.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=davies+age+pf+earth+...
There are several of his good books on Amazon.
(This is his oldest but shorter book, and it was an honest investigation)
http://www.Amazon.com/...Age-Earth-Davis-Young/dp/093466627X
The author's name is Davis A. Young, not Davies
Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2016 4:59 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
OrthodoxJew
Junior Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 7
From: Jerusalem, Israel
Joined: 01-25-2016


Message 34 of 60 (777841)
02-10-2016 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
02-06-2016 8:06 AM


"Creation in thought" is not a recent concept, but rather is mentioned multiple times in the Talmud. What exactly that means is Kabbalistic and beyond the scope of the evolution debate forum.
There is no "whole range of opinions" about the age of the universe. Sefer Hatemunah mentions two opinions. Rabbi Isaac of Akko held like one opinion and had a fresh understanding of what that opinion really meant. Even if you want to call him a third opinion, it is quite a stretch to say that one of them had to be right by random chance.
It was not the intention of Rabbi Isaac or the rabbis referred to in Sefer Hatemunah to say when various parts of the universe, such as the Earth, were formed. On this, Nachmanides says we don't know exactly how it was done, and those who know are forbidden to reveal it except to those initiated (that means it's Kabbalistic).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 02-06-2016 8:06 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 02-10-2016 12:23 PM OrthodoxJew has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 60 (777842)
02-10-2016 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by OrthodoxJew
02-04-2016 10:52 AM


I therefore say, in like manner, that you have ducked my point: How did a rabbi in the 13th century - 400 years before the telescope, when the Catholics were slaughtering cats to keep them from being used as familiar spirits by witches, who were surely responsible for the Bubonic Plague - analyze Bible commentaries that were already ancient in his time, and get the same answer as modern science?
Well, a few things occur to me. First, it's not the same answer. It's in the same ballpark.
Second, there were lots of rabbis. You find one of them who was approximately right, and say "Isn't that amazing?" Well, if the universe had turned out to be a different age, maybe you'd be able to point to a different rabbi, and say, how come he was so accurate?
Or maybe someone with the username OrthodoxHindu would be posting on these forums bragging about the accuracy of a thirteenth-century Brahmin.
With all the theologians who have speculated about the age of the universe, it would be strange if there was no-one who got within the right order of magnitude. To retrospectively identify the one theologian who did, and to declare that remarkable, seems to be an instance of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
---
Also, could we look at what Rabbi Isaac actually said? Was he calculating the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe? 'Cos they're different. (Which is not clear from the book of Genesis --- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.") If he said that the Earth was that old, then he's not at all in line with scientific knowledge.
---
Oh, and welcome to the forums. I don't believe we had an Orthodox Jew, and the more perspectives the better.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by OrthodoxJew, posted 02-04-2016 10:52 AM OrthodoxJew has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 60 (777845)
02-10-2016 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by OrthodoxJew
02-10-2016 10:28 AM


Welcome to the Forum. I have been absent for a long period.
You are probably aware of MIT physicist and Orthodox Jew - Gerald Schroeder ?
I have read his book The Science of God.
I have also read the chapter from Arthur Custance's book Without Form and Void which chapter is entitled "A Long Held View"
Custance refers to an influential rabbi by the name of Akiba ben Joseph who was president of the School Bene Barek near Saffa. Custance claims that this rabbi laid the foundation of the Mishna. He was executed in 135 AD when Barcochebas rebelled against the Romans.
According to Custance he had a disciples named Simeon ben Jochai commenting on Genesis 1 verse 2 in a book believed to be authored by him called Sefer Hazzohar ( or Zohar for short) and wrote as follows:
"These are the generations ... of heaven and earth ... The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."
In other words, before the world seen formed in the first chapter of Genesis 1 other worlds and ages existed which God had destroyed, making the age of the universe older than what could be assumed dating creation to the first man Adam.
If you read ancient Hebrew perhaps you could locate that portion of Sefer Hazzohar and comment if you agree with the English translation. Custance says that it is difficult to follow.
This would be an ancient earth view going back to the late first century CE and early second century CE, long before the 1800s and its geological theories.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by OrthodoxJew, posted 02-10-2016 10:28 AM OrthodoxJew has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 37 of 60 (777931)
02-12-2016 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 9:40 AM


Of course the Torah is not the literal truth, but I am not sure 'twisted rationalization' is a fair labeling. The age of the universe is of course known to us, and the fact that the earth is greater than 6000 years is also evident. We might well accuse the author of the article or rationalizing. But can such accusations readily by applied at the time of Isaac of Akko who lived the 13-14th century? I don't believe estimates of the earth's age being even in the millions of years were prevalent or scientifically based prior to the 1800s and some of those scientific estimates turned out to be bad science. So what would Isaac have been rationalizing?
The rationalisation in question was the idea that the first creation account in Genesis was actually just God thinking about creating things, not actually doing it, and this is why there are two creation stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 9:40 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 38 of 60 (777944)
02-12-2016 3:47 PM


Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
Concerning the statement that "Of course the Torah is not the literal truth ... ":
Can anyone site me an undisputed scientific fact that proves conclusively beyond any possibility of doubt that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? ( Gen. 1:1).
What do modern scientists know for certain that makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to be the literal truth ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 02-12-2016 4:54 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 02-12-2016 5:51 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 02-13-2016 7:18 AM jaywill has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 39 of 60 (777947)
02-12-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jaywill
02-12-2016 3:47 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
Jaywill writes:
What do modern scientists know for certain that makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to be the literal truth ?
They have absolute proof that people make stuff up and then write it down.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 3:47 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 6:48 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 40 of 60 (777948)
02-12-2016 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jaywill
02-12-2016 3:47 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
They know for certain that the heavens are over 14 billion years old and that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 3:47 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 6:46 PM jar has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 60 (777950)
02-12-2016 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
02-12-2016 5:51 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
quote:
They know for certain that the heavens are over 14 billion years old and that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Look again at my question. It says nothing about how long ago "the beginning" was.
What science fact makes the creating of the universe by God, in the beginning, impossible to be a fact?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 02-12-2016 5:51 PM jar has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 60 (777951)
02-12-2016 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
02-12-2016 4:54 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
quote:
They know for certain that the heavens are over 14 billion years old and that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
I take that as an admition that you really cannot point to something known today which makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to believe as true.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 02-12-2016 4:54 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 02-12-2016 7:47 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 02-12-2016 7:49 PM jaywill has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 60 (777954)
02-12-2016 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jaywill
02-12-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to believe as true.
Genesis 1:1
quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Given the known extent and range of human belief, for example people still believe that the earth is stationary, not making something impossible to believe has to be close to the lowest standard for credibility possible.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 6:48 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 44 of 60 (777955)
02-12-2016 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jaywill
02-12-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
I take that as an admition that you really cannot point to something known today which makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to believe as true.
You can take that anyway you want, but as usual you would certainly be wrong.
Both the creation myths in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are totally wrong, false, silly, proven to be nonsense.
You of course are simply resorting to the classic dishonesty found in so called "Biblical Christians" where you take something out of context and ignore all of the facts that show you are just posting nonsense.
Genesis 1:1 is part of a statement of what happened on the first day. An honest person would include all of the passage through Genesis 1:1-5. I'll quote it for you since it seems you are not familiar with the passage.
quote:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.
Now the honest poster would realize that there are several things that show the story is false, a fable. It mentioned one day. Now the fact that the sun and moon have not yet been created means that statement cannot be true and there is the additional small problem that even if that were possible, 14+billion years is not the same period as 4.5 billion years and neither is a day.
Sorry but to claim otherwise is at best to show ignorance and far more likely just more Christian dishonesty.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 6:48 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 60 (777964)
02-13-2016 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jaywill
02-12-2016 3:47 PM


Re: Torah disproved on Gen. 1:1 ?
jaywill writes:
Can anyone site me an undisputed scientific fact that proves conclusively beyond any possibility of doubt that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? ( Gen. 1:1).
Can anyone site me an undisputed scientific fact that proves conclusively beyond any possibility of doubt that it's not invisible virtual turtles all the way down?
Seriously, science never proves anything "conclusively beyond any possibility of doubt." Science is tentative about everything. Even what seem to us as undoubted scientific axioms and are treated thus in almost all scientific endeavors are questioned in some scientific quarters, such as that scientific laws are the same across all time and space.
Attempts to resolve the contradictory notions of science and religion usually take one of three avenues:
  1. Science and religion will eventually become mutually consistent through scientific and religious study, a la Thomas Aquinas.
  2. Science is useful and important, but where science and religion differ religion must take precedence, a la the Oxford school of thought.
  3. Separate magesteriums a la Stephen Jay Gould (and probably some earlier philosopher). They govern separate realms that need not ever meet and need not ever be reconciled.
I sense you're inflexible concerning a conservative literal interpretation of Genesis, and that means you're left with number 2, because number 1 will never happen (when tried the result is religious restrictions on scientific efforts and ideas a la the Spanish Inquisition and Galileo) and number 3 must be unacceptable to you (and isn't realistic anyway).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2016 3:47 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 02-13-2016 8:43 AM Percy 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