Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,336 Year: 3,593/9,624 Month: 464/974 Week: 77/276 Day: 5/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   13th century rabbi says universe billions of years old
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 26 of 60 (777623)
02-04-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
02-04-2016 12:55 PM


Sure, but I'm working within the confines of the OP's mythos. Presumably, the current sabbatical cycle began with Creation Week, which presumably lasted 7000 years (unless "1 day = 1000 years" is only meant to be applied when convenient). Since Adam was created during Creation Week, there would need to be an additional ~2.5 billion years after Adam's creation before the Destruction happens, which means ~2.5 billion years of human history.
That timespan for human history is not attested in either the geological record or the biblical record. In order for this numerology stuff to work out, either (1) we've got a long time to go before Destruction, or (2) there is some unattested "human history" somewhere; e.g., Adam and Eve lived alone in the Garden of Eden for billions of years before the Fall, or Adam's and Noah's biblical ages were given in divine years (so Adam died at age 339,682,500), or something like that.
This very issue was addressed by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, who as far as I can tell is the origin of the claim that Isaac of Akko accurately dated the universe. The appeal is to the two accounts of creation in Genesis. The seven days happened before the Big Bang, and referred to the creation of the world and man in thought, whereas the second account refers to the deed. So the seven days, be they God days or human days, are not part of the 15 billion years and man was, indeed, created a few thousand years ago.
Based on the quotes of Isaac given by Kaplan, he does not appear to have actually done the calculation of 15 billion years, but he did argue the world was very old if this is an accurate translation:
quote:
I, the insignificant Isaac of Akko, have seen fit to record a great mystery that should be kept very well hidden. One of God’s days is one thousand years, as it is written, For a thousand days in Your sight are as a day (Psalms 90:4). Since one of our years is 365¼ days, a year on high is 365,250 of our years. Two years on high is 730,000 of our years. From this, continue multiplying to 49,000 years, each year consisting of 365¼ days, and each supernal day being one thousand of our years, as it is written, God alone will prevail on that day (Isaiah 2:11). Who can speak of God’s greatness? (Psalms 106:2). Blessed be the name of Him whose glorious Kingdom is forever and ever.
All this relates to what the Scripture states. However, no matter how many times this picture is doubled, even thousands upon thousands, it would not even be like a second to [God]... However, with regard to the Infinite One, it is enough that He is called Infinite.
and more explicitly:
quote:
Behold, our eyes see that the world has existed for a very long time. This is to refute the opinion of those who say that the world has not existed more than forty-nine thousand years, which is seven Sabbatical cycles.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2016 12:55 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2016 3:28 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2016 10:54 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 29 of 60 (777700)
02-06-2016 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Blue Jay
02-05-2016 10:54 AM


I've never heard of this Rabbi before. Do you have a link I could follow to read the whole argument?
The relevant chapter of his book is online here.
Judging by your brief comments, it sounds a bit anticlimactic. Basically, it sounds like this: "The numbers work out, and the remaining discrepancies are entirely due to details that God/Moses left out of the Torah." That's not fair.
Also, what does "created in thought" mean? Does it mean God came up with the idea of Creation before the Big Bang, then implemented it over the next 15 billion years?
Apparently this is an old argument used by some Orthodox Jews to explain away the contradiction of the two creation stories. Creation 'in thought' does, indeed, appear to simply mean 'coming up with the idea' - which is given a much deeper significance on account of it being God's idea - why creating 'in deed' is actually going through with the idea. So in the first creation account God creates man and woman together, meaning he thought of them both at the same time, while in the second their actual creation in reality happens one after the other.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2016 10:54 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 02-06-2016 8:06 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 9:40 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1043 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

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 59 of 60 (778244)
02-18-2016 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by OrthodoxJew
02-18-2016 10:32 AM


It should be obvious from the mention of evenings and mornings before the Sun was made that the Bible is not speaking of literal days as we know them.
And yet this fact was not obvious to the medieval rabbis to whom you ascribe so much prescience about the true nature of the universe. Nahmanides explains to us:
quote:
And know that the days that are mentioned in the act of creation were, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, real days - composed of hours and minutes, and they were six like the six days of the week, like the simple understanding of the verse
The references to evening and morning is, for him,
quote:
...hinting to that which will be in the firmament after the placing of the luminaries in the firmanent of the skies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by OrthodoxJew, posted 02-18-2016 10:32 AM OrthodoxJew has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024