Science vs Torah. And the winner is....

↑ faigie ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 12:16 pm

im gonna be kind here..............
I dont know where you studied science, but it isnt all that askew as youve been led to believe.
thought sefer yetzira is a short sefer, its interps are long and it takes a while to plow thru, even so im plowing thru it and.......
im sure it states that the earth is not the center of the universe. it is figuratively, for sure, as we are upon it.
most, if not 99% of what we learn as pshat, is not supposed to end at the p'shat. there are way deeper meanings. remember, even the payrush rashi, was originally written for children!
the only planets that concern us, at least while studying, are those that are involved in tikun. the rest, for learning purposes, are irrelevant.
I have no clue what your background is, or where you learned or where you live, and its theology........but it isnt mainstream orthodoxy.

↑ faigie ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 12:21 pm

ok here is the answer......... its long, but if youre interested, its a good read.
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/S.....e_Age(s)_of_the_Universe.asp

↑ faigie ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 12:24 pm

the link isnt working for some reason,, so im just going to cut and paste it out...........
I hope this explanation works for you, if not, sorry, no more on the subject from me.

Last edited by faigie on Wed, Jul 25 2007, 12:32 pm; edited 2 times in total

↑ faigie ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 12:25 pm

The Age of the Universe

One of the age-old questions of the world concerns its age and is a matter that involves great social controversy. Some theologians, often lacking a background in the physical and biological sciences, take literally the Biblical text and state that the creation of the universe took place in a 6 X 24-hour time period, bringing the total amount of years from creation to date, 5764. Scientists, on the other hand, rejecting biblical texts, date the earth at 4.6 billion years and the surrounding universe at approximately 15 billion years. Some religious scientists, trying to resolve apparent contradictions, state the reinterpretation of the biblical day as phases or epochs. Midrashic and Kabalistic sources also hint at an older universe in terms of "Divine years", whether they be in physical or spiritual terms.
" In the beginning...clearly states a starting point of creation..."

[Note: "... According to the master Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco (Acre), when counting the years of these cycles, one must not use an ordinary physical year, but rather, a divine year (Otzar Chaim 86b). The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday" (Psalm 90:4; see Bereishit Rabba 8:2, Zohar 2: 145b, Sanhedrin 97a). Since each year contains 365.25 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of 2.5 billion years is very close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth. If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some 15 billion years ago." - Taken from Sefer Yetzira, commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, published by Weiser- 1997, page 186.]

Seemingly paradoxical Biblical and scientific positions like these are not contradictions, but rather, on the contrary, are reconcilable through modern science.

From a philosophical standpoint one might have considered the creation of the universe as having taken neither 15 billion years, nor six 24-hour time periods. An all-powerful and all omniscient creator should not have to be locked into any frame of period of time at all. G-d spoke it, and the universe came into being, instantaneously, without any elapse of time intervention involved. This cannot be, for Chazal makes mention many times in the Gemara, that "The Torah speaks in the language of man". And the universe is described in the Torah explicitly as having taken place in the time span of six creation-days.(Nachmanides, known as the Ramban, in his commentary on Gen. 1:3, quotes the verse "To you G-d is the Greatness and the Might... etc." See commentaries on the verse: I Chronicles 29:11.) Alternatively, the notion of the "Eternity of the universe", mentioned many times in Moreh Nevuchim [work of Maimonides, the Rambam, known in English as "Guide to the Perplexed"] and known as the primary opinion of most early Greek philosophers, states that the universe always has been in existence without any point of creation. This again is as easily rejected when we consider the first word of the Torah which is written "In the beginning", which clearly states a starting point of creation.

Before answering this question concerning the age of the universe, let us first examine a related aspect of this topic. We will then begin to see the importance of correlating two or more reference frames that seem to oppose one another completely, but are actually all equally true, only viewed from different standpoints. Which of the following two opinions is truer to say? According to a perspective based on modern observable astronomy, is the earth revolving around the sun, with the sun having a fixed, unmoving position in relation to the earth, or according to the Rambam who discusses at length in the Mishna Torah (Cf Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah, chapter 3, Halacha 4) a more Aristotelian approach to the makeup of the universe, that the earth is in a fixed unmoving position at the center of the universe, with the sun and other celestial bodies circling in orbit around us?
" Everything in the universe is in motion, including the fabric of space/time itself..."

The answer is not surprising, in fact it will be perfectly understood, when we recognize the proven aspects of the General and Special theories of relativity that concern us with the notion that there is no such thing as absolute rest in the universe. Everything in the universe is in motion, including the fabric of space/ time itself. Science proves this. How? Almost all of what we see in the sky, including the galaxies, and even the quasi- stellar light formations at the most distant reaches of our observable universe, display a red or Doppler shift that suggests that they are in motion away from us, or we from them, or both. [A red/Doppler shift occurs when a light frequency is stretched from one point in the electromagnetic spectrum to another, because of its motion away from the observer.] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, in one of his letters*, explains clearly that the answer to this question, concerning the sun and the earth, is that they are both equally true statements one with the other. Indeed, the Lubavitcher Rebbe gives a third equally true opinion, that they are both circling each other. With no stationary reference point for observation, it is impossible for an observer in a third inertial reference frame to make any absolute conclusion based solely on his own observation point. The Rambam was not in error when he explains the geo-centricity of the universe with the earth at its very center. We will explain shortly another way to harmonize two seemingly contradictory viewpoints. (*Reference is to Emuna U'mada; Iyar 25, 5719 (1959); page 103; chapter 40 "The certainty movement of the sun." See also Igrot Kodesh, volume 18, page 393.)

Let us now return to our first question concerning the age of the universe. However, it is imperative to understand first a few basic foundation points that will be the basis for our answer. Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh writes in a letter of his, "One must understand the generalization of the sages that there is true science from the viewpoint of "gavra", which is how the issue appears to man on earth, as well as true science from the viewpoint of "cheftza", which is how the issue appears from without." In other words, there is subjective science (as seen from the observer standing within a reference frame looking out), and objective science (as seen from the observer standing outside of a reference frame looking in).
" The Bible describes the processes and phenomena of nature in terms of the impression they make on the human senses..."

[In the publication B'or Hatorah, #11 - 1999, page 174] Professor Cyril Domb of Bar Ilan University quotes Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, of blessed memory, as saying: "The Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to G-d, but in terms of human understanding... The Bible uses human language when it speaks of the 'rising and setting of the sun' and not of the rotation of the earth, just as Copernicus, Kepler, and other such scientists, in their words and writings, spoke of the rising and setting of the sun without thereby contradicting truths they had derived from there own scientific conclusions. "Human language", which is also the language of the Bible, describes the processes and phenomena of nature in terms of the impression they make on the human senses, without thereby meaning to prejudice, in any manner, the findings of scientific research." (S.R. Hirsch. Collected Writing, volume 7 (New York: Feldheim, 1992), page 57.)

Professor Gerald Schroeder illustrates in his book "Genesis and the Big Bang" a model of the creation of the universe to describe how the two positions, of six 24- hours and 15 billion years, are unified. (Cf. Schroeder, chapter 2, "Stretching Time". See also "Time Dilation" there.)
" The age of the universe...depends on where you stand..."

Let us imagine ourselves standing outside the four-dimensional universe at the point of creation. We speak of a four-dimensional universe, three being of space and one being of time, because they are an integral and interwoven continuum one with the other, as much as transparency is to silicon. No one would consider taking a glass and separating the clearness to one side and the silicon to the other. Silicon in its natural state is clear; that is its molecular and physical make up and structure. So too, time cannot be excluded or discussed separately when dealing with the integral interwoven fabric of space/time, as mentioned before. According to the Midrash and the Rambam, time was a separately created entity on the first day, along with the space of the physical universe encompassing it. Even though one could distinguish between time and space, science considers them as a unified entity. [Cf. Midrash Bereishit Rabba 3:7. Rambam: Moreh Nevuchim, section 2, chapter 13. Gemara Chagiga 12a - and commentary of Maharsha there. Also see commentary of Rav Ovadia Sforno, on Bereishit 1:1. Likutei Moharan, of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, section 2: 61. The Ramban 1:5.]

So if indeed, we were outside of the universe during the moment of creation, where again time is not in existence and not a relevant concept, from our "objective" frame of reference, the development of the creation of the universe would have appeared to us as having taken six 24-hour time periods, in literal accordance with the text of our Torah. And if you prefer, a "subjective" observational reference frame, as viewed from man from within, where time is a relevant factor and now an influence on our perception, then the universe may have appeared to develop over a period of time consistent with the estimations of modern observable sciences. There is no differentiating between two or more space/ time reference frames. Time dilation, which is the refraction or bending of time, is a scientifically accepted part of the physics that govern our observable universe. Thus, it is equally true to say that the universe is 6 days or 15 billion years. What is the age of the universe? It depends on where you stand and is all relative. [Note: There are many examples of instances, especially in the times of the Gemara and antiquity, where individuals had the ability to transpose the boundaries of time. - See Midrash Rabba; parasha 3, section 9.]

Many contradictions in Torah, like the variance between the House of Study of Shammai and House of Study of Hillel on the "heavens and the earth", are unified when we discover the words of the sages when they state "These and these are the words of the living G-d". It is the emphasis and main objective, in reconciling the two ages of the universe, to recognize a principle in Torah, that whenever we have two or more seemingly contradictory matters opposing one another, in many cases, they may be brought together using the means and technique stated above.

Simcha Tzvi Koretz is an American oleh, now a resident of Safed, learning in the kollel.

↑ Seraph ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 4:36 pm

What are you doing on the computer, and I hope you have plenty of candles in your house...
because the torah doesn't mention electricity, and scientists developed both electricity AND internet.
So its apikorsus to use either of them...

↑ amother ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 4:52 pm

breslov wrote:

Strawman. I never said that the Torah has to mention something for it to exist; and, as I've admitted to chaimsmom earlier, science can have some practical applications.

But where it conflicts with Torah, it must be ipso facto wrong. And in the dozen things at the start of this thread, science is wrong.

↑ faigie ↓

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 4:56 pm

amother,, I just posted parushim from decent frum sources. I know the article is long and at times tedious, but it does give sources and explanations to many questions. its worth the read.

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 12:48 pm

faigie wrote:

amother,, I just posted parushim from decent frum sources. I know the article is long and at times tedious, but it does give sources and explanations to many questions. its worth the read.

Thank you faigie. It's an interesting read, but the point still remains that not one Tanna and not one Amora ever held that the world was millions of years old. All the kabbalistic explainations are very nice, but, in the end, the world is still only 5767 years old... and science is still wrong.

↑ TzenaRena ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 1:17 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

amother wrote:

EstiS wrote:

are you being sarcastic?

for starters, there is a world and there is an earth.
No man, even according to science has walked anywhere outside of the world or universe.
don't confuse the two.

Walking "outside the universe" is clearly an impossibility, as the word "universe" includes everything. Clearly then, when it says that the world is surrounded by the yesod of aish, it's not referring to the universe, since there is no "outside" the universe (any more than there can be a "before time").

This reminds me of the question that some Rabbis had regarding kiddush levana when the astronauts set foot on the moon for the first time, whether we could still continue to say the phrase "just as I cannot touch you - the levana- so may my enemies not be able to touch me to harm.."

The Rebbe gave an explanation, which I'll post later iy"h

Yes, man walked on the moon, and that got some people worried and started them saying that the Kiddush Levana had to be changed, since now, it was no longer that "just as I am dancing (jumping up) and cannot touch you, so should my enemies not be able to touch me to harm..." because now we CAN touch the moon.

The Rebbe observed a simple obvious fact. Would an elderly Jew saying Kiddush Levana in his siddur here on earth be able to reach out and just touch the moon? So regardless of the advances in science and technology, everything in the Siddur, Chazal and so on remains true, and not contradicted!

Quote:

"Even John Glenn will admit to you that he never walked on the moon. "

Faige wrote:

it wasnt john glenn who stepped onto the moons surface, it was Aldin and Armstrong..............

Yeah, I am editing, whoever it was, it was "one small step for man, one giant step for mankind!" However, that didn't change our Siddur, written by the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah.

And as far as age of the universe, all the scientific speculation doesn't change what the Torah says, that the world was created in 6 days.

As far as your long post, I didn't read through it yet, but what you quote from Kabbalistic sources is not talking about physical time. What it's referring to is in the spiritual dimension.

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 1:26 pm

I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 1:30 pm

amother wrote:

I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

Maybe that is because for many of us the fight you seem to percieve doesn't exist. There are scientist that are anti-Torah and anti-religion, and their are Rabbi's that are anti-science...but science and Torah aren't at war.

↑ BeershevaBubby ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 1:51 pm

amother wrote:

I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

Um.. you didn't prove anything. You made statements.

And considering you made these statements which seem to be your conviction, anonymously, rather than have the courage to make these statements under your screen name, many of us just aren't bothering.

TammyTammy ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 2:26 pm

Why not? It's like shooting fish in a barrel:

Quote:

"Science" says the world is millions of years old, we know it to be only 5767. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

There is quite a bit of evidence for the fact that the world is older than 5767 years. Genetic markers within your body and the body of every person on earth prove that our genetic heritage is older than 5767 years. Rocks have been dated to billions of years old. Archaeological evidence shows that places such as Damascus have been continually inhabited for over 7000 years. You may choose to ignore it of course, but that doesn't change the facts.

Quote:

"Science" says that man evolved from apes which evolved from monkeys which evolved from something else which evolved from ducks which evolved from slime. The Torah says that we were created with a Tzelem Elokim. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

First of all, make sure you understand what it is you're arguing against. The Theory of Evolution does not state that we came from monkeys or apes, but rather that we come from a common ancestor.

Secondly, there is ample evidence for evolution as well. If you want to maintain that human beings didn't evolve from lower life forms because were are theologically special, that's an argument I'll consider. But the idea that evolution in general is nonsense is ludicrous.

Quote:

"Science" says that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. The Torah tells us that the sun, moon and planets revolve around the earth. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

Guess what? The planets *do* revolve around the sun. Or, more specifically, they both revolve around a point that is the center of their gravities. However, for all planets, that is a point within the Sun itself. There is no way that the Sun, which is many, many, many (I don't think I can include enough manys) more massive than the Earth, could possibly orbit it. If so, then you would think that the Earth would orbit the moon... but it doesn't.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that the Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water on the planet. The Torah tells us that the Mediterranean is the largest (hence it's name "yam hagadol"). We know the Torah is right because it comes from the One who created the Oceans.

Take out a map. Look for yourself.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that Mt. Everest is the highest point on the Earth. The Torah tells us that Eretz Yisroel is higher than all other lands. The Torah is right because it was written by the One who made all the lands.

So, if Mt. Everest is so high up that climbers require supplemental oxygen, then why isn't it required in EY? When I was there, I don't remember carrying around oxygen.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that there are eight planets. Well, that's what they're telling us this year. Last year it was nine. Next year it might be ten. The Torah, on the other hand, tells us that there are six planets in addition to the sun and the moon. We know the Torah is right because it was written by the One who created the sun, moon and planets.

All that changed was the definition of a planet. What's actually out there hasn't changed.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that lice come from eggs. The Torah tells us that lice do not come from eggs. The Torah wins because it was written by One who created lice and eggs.

Check with any biologist. Lice come from eggs. In addition, check with any nurse from a girl's school.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that the moon is incapable of generating it's own light, rather that it reflects light from the sun. The Torah tells us (via the midrash) that the moon can generate it's own light -- just not as much as the sun. The Torah wins because it was written by the One who created the sun and the moon.

If the moon generates it's own light, why isn't it lit up full all the time like the Sun?

Quote:

"Science" tells us that there could not have been a flood that covered the entire earth. The Torah says there was. The Torah wins because it was written by the One who created floods and the earth.

I don't really want to get into the Flood here, but suffice it to say, there is ample scientific evidence AGAINST a world wide flood.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that men have walked on the moon. The Torah tells us that above the earth is the Yesod of Aish and that anything that passes through it would burn up. The Torah wins because it was written by the One who created the universe.

When you look up at the sky at night, do you see the moon? Or is the fire in your way?

Quote:

"Science" tells us that certain species, such as the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the tasmanian tiger are extinct. Yet, the Torah tells us that no species will ever go extinct (see Minchas HaChinuch). The Torah wins because it was written by the One who created all species of animal.

So, please tell us where the dodo, the passenger pigeon, the tasmanian tiger, wooley mammoth, mastadon, sabertooth tiger and the thousands of other "so-called" extinct species are hanging out. I'm sure you could easily get a Nobel Prize by producing any one of them.

Quote:

"Science" tells us that the conquest of Canaan could not have happened when it did because of archaeological evidence. The Torah wins again because it was written by the Author of history.

No, I think you need to find a way to syntehsize the Torah with archeology. Do you even know the first thing about archeology? There are frum archaeologists, you know. Please show me where it states that the conquest of Kna'an couldn't have happened.

I have no doubt that soon a poster will come along (Motek, are you out there? Smile

) and tell me that none of my sources are Torah sources. Nonetheless, there is nothing that says that a non-Torah source cannot be true.

Tammy

Last edited by TammyTammy on Thu, Jul 26 2007, 2:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ruchel ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 2:28 pm

sometimes I am afraid when I read stuff here

↑ faigie ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:02 pm

"As far as your long post, I didn't read through it yet, but what you quote from Kabbalistic sources is not talking about physical time. What it's referring to is in the spiritual dimension."
_________________
check the 2nd paragraph.

↑ TzenaRena ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:21 pm

Quote:

amother wrote:
I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

You have my support Smile

, that is for your point, although I haven't gone through each and every one of your examples, and ther's some truth to this:

Kmelion wrote:

Um.. you didn't prove anything. You made statements.

although I don't think proof is needed to establish that Torah is true, that is it shouldn't have to be. I thought that was the premise we start with, ie. the given! I have plenty to say about that! Tongue Out

feigie wrote:

It may not have to be limited to the pshat, but it certainly cannot substitute for, replace or displace the pshat. Pshat in Torah IS immutable. Since I'm not familiar with Sefer Yetzirah, I'll have to ask my husband about it.

↑ TzenaRena ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:38 pm

Quote:

One of the age-old questions of the world concerns its age and is a matter that involves great social controversy.

It's not that old, it's not age old, Darwin lived when, a hundred and fifty years ago?

Why can't I learn poshute pshat in Torah, just because Charles Darwin, a shikore [gentile] - the way I heard the Rebbe referred to Sheakspeare, another icon - , a baal taavah and who knows what else, that lived a hundred some years ago fantasized what he did? Why do I have to bend the pshat in Torah for that?!!

Even if Toras Hashem, Toras Moshe, and Darwinism (chas v'shalom!) were on the same level,

Torah speaks in terms of absolute truths.

Darwin - speaks in terms of evolutionary THEORY, that is conjecture.

There is a klall in Torah: bori v'shemah, bori adif. bori = a certainty
shemah = an uncertainty

between a certainty and an uncertainty, the certainty takes precedence.

So why should the Torah have to bend because of the fantasizing [gentile]?

Just because every science textbook bases itself on that? So what?

In Avraham Avinu's time, everyone worshipped idols. They questioned whether G-d existed or not. Yet Avraham proclaimed the Oneness of G-d to all.

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:54 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Quote:

One of the age-old questions of the world concerns its age and is a matter that involves great social controversy.

The ad hominem attacks on Darwin are really beside the point. Whether or not his theory is true has *absolutely nothing* to do whether he was a drunkard or a ba'al taavah (neither of which I know to be true).

Quote:

Even if Toras Hashem, Toras Moshe, and Darwinism (chas v'shalom!) were on the same level,

Torah speaks in terms of absolute truths.

Darwin - speaks in terms of evolutionary THEORY, that is conjecture.

"Theory" in scientific terms does not have the same meaning as it does in the general public. As I'm sure you've heard before, gravity is a "theory" too.

Tammy

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:55 pm

Just to be clear here....

I'm not endorsing evolution. I'm just pointing out the fallacies in Tzena's arguments.

Tammy

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 4:59 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Just because every science textbook bases itself on that? So what?

Actually, the fact that every science textbook bases itself on it is a very telling point in it's favor.

Look at it this way: if every doctor told you that smoking was dangerous, would you believe them?

If every lawyer told you that you could be sued for slander if you say X in public, would you believe them?

If every architect told you that if you build your house a certain way it'll fall down in a year, would you believe them?

Obviously, the answer in all three cases is yes. Uninamity among experts is an extremely strong point in evolution's favor. You may want to base your arguments elsewhere.

Tammy