Talking Religion...

[Brewtus]

The Big Bang

"Let there be light" - more so, when you look back through the history of the world, and use Einsteins theory of Relativity, Day 1 or 24 hours, lines up perfectly with the record of the Earth and what Genisis describes. Day 2, 3, and so on fit.

To add to what JimsSweaterVest wrote above, how do you get Genesis to line up with the scientific record? The order and time of appearance of things are incompatible with one another.

Here's what science tells us:
15,000 million years ago: Big Bang
4,600 million years ago: Birth of the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon
3,800 million years ago: Emergence of Life (Pre-cellular Life)
505 million years ago: Spread of Jawless Fishes
408 million years ago: First Amphibians
360 million years ago: First Reptiles
248 million years ago: First Dinosaurs and Mammal-like Reptiles;
213 million years ago: First Birds
4 million years ago: Australopithecus
200 thousand years ago: Homo Sapiens

And here's what Genesis tells us (at least this is what is most commonly accepted since Genesis contradicts itself on the order of appearance):
"Day" 1: Creation of Day and Night
"Day" 2: Creation of Heaven
"Day" 3: Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants
"Day" 4: Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars
"Day" 5: Creation of Fishes and Birds
"Day" 6: Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, the Beasts of the Earth, and Man)
"Day" 7: No Further Emergence of Life Forms on Earth

The orders are not "lined up perfectly" at all. Genesis has day and night appearing 3 "days" before the sun and stars appear. How does that happen? And the Earth is created before the sun, moon and stars. Birds also appear before the other land animals.

Religion and science can never be reconciled if the Bible is interpreted as an accurate historical scientific textbook.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Brew - if you read it literally, I absolutely agree. If you read it metaphorically, it's not so far from what the sciences reveal. (Bearing in mind also, that the Bible, to me, is NOT the Word of G-d, but is instead the word of man about what he thinks of G-d, as well as some "philosophy" on things like "How did the earth get here?" and tales of historic events (embellished as stories are) like the Flood or Exodus.)

It's interesting to me that - if I'm correct about the creation story being man's philosophy as to what might have happened, and prior to any science sophisticated enough to truly examine the issue - they were reasonably close to what we now observe to the creation of a universe.

Granted, there is no G-d in this formulation, so it would not be my point here to suggest the "interest" I mention in paragraph 2 should compel a belief in G-d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Genesis is a written record of an oral tradition that was passed down over centuries. It contains a creation myth and some of the founding myths of the Hebrews. It's good folk literature, but that's about it.

It has no scientific content whatsoever. Genesis was written so long before science came along, that it shouldn't surprise you that it cannot even begin to describe the things we learned (and are still learning) about the age of the universe, the origin and evolution of living organisms, etc...

To add to what JimsSweaterVest wrote above, how do you get Genesis to line up with the scientific record? The order and time of appearance of things are incompatible with one another.

Religion and science can never be reconciled if the Bible is interpreted as an accurate historical scientific textbook.

If I may, I'd like to interject. The first emboldened sentence is not entirely true, and the second emboldened sentence is moderately true.

I will say openly and immediately that the Genesis record of Chapters 1 & 2 are not to be interpreted literally. Thus, YEC has no place from a Judaic POV, and the original Hebrew gives no context to support that argument.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder wrote a book that discusses how science and Genesis can be harmoniously interpreted and understood: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233246251&sr=8-1"]Genesis & The Big Bang[/ame]

As for Schroeder's credentials: Gerald Schroeder

In 1965, Schroeder received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences. After emigrating to Israel in 1971, he was employed as a researcher at the Weitzman Institute, the Volcani Research Institute, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [1] [2]
His personal faith belongs to that of Orthodox Judaism, and his works frequently cite ancient Talmudic commentaries on Biblical creation accounts, such as commentaries written by the Jewish philosopher Nachmanides. Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile the oft-implied Biblical account of a young earth with the scientific observation our world is billions of years old with the commonly accepted phenomenon that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer?s perspective of that event. He attempts to describe the spatial perspectives numerically, with calculations faithful to the effect of the stretching of space: Einstein's General Relativity Theory.

Basically, my point is that I understand how both of you guys would present the contention that Genesis and Evolution/Origins are completely incongruent. However, I believe that if one decides to look at it from a different perspective (outside of the common YEC, Creationism, etc) spectrum; then there can be commonalities.

Take it FWIW.

 

[Brewtus]

Brew - if you read it literally, I absolutely agree. If you read it metaphorically, it's not so far from what the sciences reveal. (Bearing in mind also, that the Bible, to me, is NOT the Word of G-d, but is instead the word of man about what he thinks of G-d, as well as some "philosophy" on things like "How did the earth get here?" and tales of historic events (embellished as stories are) like the Flood or Exodus.)

Unfortunately I think you're in the minority of those who interpret the Bible metaphorically. I think most people take a literal approach, or at least think that most of the Bible should be taken literally.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Thus, YEC has no place from a Judaic POV, and the original Hebrew gives no context to support that argument.
Take it FWIW.

A. If there is no place for YEC in the Judaic POV, then what exactly does it mean that we are in the year 5769? Exactly what are they counting from if not creation?

B. If there is no place for YEC in the Judiac POV, then why does Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) speak of the world existing for 7000 years?

R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye said: it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. It has been taught in accordance with R. Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day,' and it is further said, A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day, meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath ? and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past. The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era

 

[ScarletBlood31]

Heard a stand-up bit on that topic last night:

Right. And if it WAS his body and blood, how'd he break it to them? Before the meal? Nah, nobody would eat that. Probably sometime halfway through the meal.

"Hey guys...what do you think of dinner? Pretty good, right? Yeah.....that's my body and that wine.......yeah, you're drinking my blood."

That Jesus was quite the prankster.

If I told you what it is, i'm afraid you wouldn't even try it....

 

[muffler dragon]

A. If there is no place for YEC in the Judaic POV, then what exactly does it mean that we are in the year 5769? Exactly what are they counting from if not creation?

I believe the following answers succinctly.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html

Numbering of Jewish Years The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").

B. If there is no place for YEC in the Judiac POV, then why does Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) speak of the world existing for 7000 years?

Looking at the entire Folio:

the tabernacle of David ha-nofeleth [that is fallen].'1 He replied, 'Thus hath R. Johanan said: in the generation when the son of David [i.e., Messiah] will come, scholars will be few in number, and as for the rest, their eyes will fail through sorrow and grief. Multitudes of trouble and evil decrees will be promulgated anew, each new evil coming with haste before the other has ended.' Our Rabbis taught: in the seven year cycle at the end of which the son of David will come...

cont

This is a discussion on when Messiah will come.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I believe the following answers succinctly.

Jewish Calendar

Looking at the entire Folio:

This is a discussion on when Messiah will come.

I'm not challenging that the modern Jewish view allows for or even accepts an Old Earth, what I am challenging is the blanket statement that a Young Earth "has no place from a Judaic POV". Even what you post suggests that a Young Earth POV "has a place", although it may not be the current, dominant view in Judaism.

As for tract in Talmud that I refrenced, of course when Messiah will come is the point of those passages. And it is discussed in the context of the world existing for 7000 years. So, simply saying that it is discussing Messiah doesn't really address the "has not place from a Judaic POV", since the assumptions of the tract would indicate that such a view in fact does have a place.

Furthermore, Ibn Ezra's commentary on Genesis from the 11th Century provides additional evidence to the older writings of the Talmud that Judaism certainly allowed for Young Earth interpretation to have a place.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp

And sense I know you pretty much doubt anything that comes from Christian writers, here are even more current writings on the Old Earth/Young Earth question from a Jewish perspective that shows that YE has a place in Judaism.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe.htm
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/60946/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, if I were to say a Flat Earth has no place in science, I would be incorrect because there used to be a bunch of folks who thought, incorrectly, that it was so, based on the "science" of their day?

Likewise, since I can link to the Flat Earth Society should I believe the idea still has merit when the weight of the evidence is so crushingly in favor of a round earth?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm not challenging that the modern Jewish view allows for or even accepts an Old Earth, what I am challenging is the blanket statement that a Young Earth "has no place from a Judaic POV". Even what you post suggests that a Young Earth POV "has a place", although it may not be the current, dominant view in Judaism.

I don't understand why you're challenging my statement considering you're not Jewish nor Judaic.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Unfortunately I think you're in the minority of those who interpret the Bible metaphorically. I think most people take a literal approach, or at least think that most of the Bible should be taken literally.

If you think I take the bible literally, you haven't been reading my posts.

In general, yes, people do read it literally and too be honest, it's sad.

 

[Gatorubet]

Grad, where do you stand on Wellhausen or Richard Elliott Friedman's documentary hypothesis versus Whybray's...defense, I guess you could call it, of literalism - at least as far as the Word being written in essentially one form since the Patriarchs?

Do you think the Pentateuch was written by Moses, soon after his death, or do you think that the Bible as we now know it was from various sources at various times and then written/edited to its final form?

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't understand why you're challenging my statement considering you're not Jewish nor Judaic.

I'm challenging it because it is not correct.

As for the whole "you're not Jewish" comment, well, I'm not even going to get into that with you.

Of course, if the criteria for making comments about Jewish beliefs is that one has to be Jewish, then why are you always making definitive claims of what Jews believe and don't believe since you are not Jewish?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Grad, where do you stand on Wellhausen or Richard Elliott Friedman's documentary hypothesis versus Whybray's...defense, I guess you could call it, of literalism - at least as far as the Word being written in essentially one form since the Patriarchs?

Do you think the Pentateuch was written by Moses, soon after his death, or do you think that the Bible as we now know it was from various sources at various times and then written/edited to its final form?

I reject the documentary hypothesis as there is no historical evidence to support it...meaning, that it is only a literary hypothesis that has no documentational evidence. There is no evidence of four seperate texts as the oldest copies of the Torah of which we know are the complete five books as we have them today. For similar reasons I also reject the missing gospel hypothesis that is suppose to have influenced Matthew and Luke.

Personally, I do hold that Moses wrote the entire Torah (with a possible exception of the last few verses of Deuteronomy that speak of his death--either Moses wrote it prophetically or Joshua would have completed it). Conclusions beyond this without the support of any physical evidence are too speculative.

 

[Taosman]

Why would religious characters need to be legitimatized with documentation? We're talking "faith" here. It's a specious argument.
To argue otherwise is just prostelitizing.