|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 7 From: Jerusalem, Israel Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 13th century rabbi says universe billions of years old | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OrthodoxJew Junior Member (Idle past 2983 days) Posts: 7 From: Jerusalem, Israel Joined: |
"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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
makes Genesis 1:1 impossible to believe as true. Genesis 1:1
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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:
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024