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

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:46 am

No use Mali, you won't understand, and I do. My beliefs don't contradict TOrah, but your imagination of what Torah is. I follow valid theories and you can question them all you want. Doesn't change my belief that Hashem is the Owner, Creator and ALl of this world.

↑ hadasa ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:29 am

I'm beginning to agree with your husband that there's no point discussing the matter.....I'm sorry to say I'm getting the impression that you feel one can twist the meaning of any Possuk in order to reconcile it with modern scientific theories......I thought science and other secular studies were supposed to be a handmaiden to Torah, yet it seems to me the other way around..... Crying

↑ Ruchel ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:37 am

Many Orthodox rabbis (not charedi) think like HR, I don't think they twist the Torah.

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 6:10 am

"No intermediary stages mentioned there. So much for your belief in Torah."
--------- girlfriend, do you ever stop being rude? I cant help but wonder what youre like IRL. would you have the guts to insult people to their face? do you think this is, in the least bit, productive?
do you know what a person who read this thread would conclude? theyd conclude that people who view torah from your perspective are mean, rude, insulting human beings, who care more about their dogma then about people.
is that what you want? is that who you are?

↑ Clarissa

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 6:17 am

mali wrote:

Quick reminder where man came from: (Gen. 2)

6. And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.

7. And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

No intermediary stages mentioned there. So much for your belief in Torah.

Ah, now I get it! I didn't before, but now that you typed it really, really big, I feel exactly as you do and believe it in exactly the same way.

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 8:59 am

Clarissa wrote:

mali wrote:

Ah, now I get it! I didn't before, but now that you typed it really, really big, I feel exactly as you do and believe it in exactly the same way.

Thank you Clarrissa. I needed that!

Tammy

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 11:35 am

HindaRochel wrote:

so explain the above verse.

↑ Motek ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 11:36 am

Hadasa - I posted about gittin long ago in the Chazal-Slifkin thread. This is my post (see point #9):

from a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, 5733 [1973]

... Perhaps this is an opportunity to re-emphasize several basic points:

1) Those well-meaning persons who felt impelled to interpret certain passages in the Torah differently from the time-honored traditional interpretation, did so only in the mistaken belief that the Torah view (on the age of the world etc.) was at variance with science; otherwise they would not have sought new interpretations in the Torah.

2) The apologetic literature - at least a substantial part of it - that was created as a result of this misconception, relied on the principle that, as in the case of "mutar leshanot mipnei darchei shalom" [it is permissible to change for the sake of peace], there was no harm in making an "innocent" verbal concession to science, if it would be helpful in strengthening commitment to Torah and mitzvoth [commandments] of many.

3) At the bottom of this attitude was the mistaken belief that scientific "conclusions" were categorical and absolute.

4) Parenthetically, some explanation for this attitude to science may be found in the fact (pointed out in my previous letter), that the Torah accords to science a higher status of credibility than contemporary science lays claim to, as is evidenced from the rule in halacha that the prohibition of chilul [desecrating] Shabbos may be waived on the opinion of a physician in the area of pikuach nefesh [saving a life] and many similar rulings.

5) The crucial point, however, is that the latest conclusions of science introduced a radical change into science's own evaluation of itself, clearly defining its own limitations. Accordingly, there is nothing categorical in science; the principle of cause and effect is substituted by "probable sequence of events" etc.

6) Furthermore, contemporary science holds that scientific judgments and descriptions do not necessarily "present" things as they really are.

7) Science demands empirical verification: "conclusions" are considered "scientific" if they have been investigated experimentally - but certainly not in relation to conditions which have never been known to mankind and can never be duplicated.

8 ) In view of all that has been said above, there is no reason whatever to believe that science (as different from scientists) can state anything definitive on something which occurred in the remote past, in the pre-dawn of history. Consequently, there is no need to seek new reinterpretations in the Torah to "reconcile" them with science, as stated in the beginning of the letter.

9)Apropos of your special reference to Shabbos Bereishis, it is astonishing that those who attempted to reinterpret the Six Day Creation account in terms of eons etc. failed to even mention the contradiction of such a view with the text of a get [writ of divorce]. It is well known how punctilious the halacha [Jewish law] is in regard to a get. The text of the get begins with the unequivocal dating of it "according to the creation of the world" (e.g. in the current year it would read: "Shnas Chameshes Alafim Sheva Meios Ushloshim V'Shalosh Libriyas HaOlam" (the year five thousand, seven hundred and thirty-three since the creation of the world).

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 11:49 am

Science is an art of understanding as much as can be understood without having to accept divine intervention. Creation, flood etc. will not be accepted as valid truths by science until it can be proven that no other explanation is possible. However, science has never proved anything to the contrary. In Judaism we have an unbroken chain of testimony verifying these facts to literal truths. We don’t need to wait until science arrives upon a conclusive understanding of the history of the world.

We, as believing Jews view Torah as the ultimate truth. Science, however, is the one that needs to be proven. The Creator knows better than any scientist how the world came to be and He wrote it in the Torah. Why should I care if science didn't yet come to that conclusion?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 12:46 pm

mali wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

so explain the above verse.

I have. Ad nauseum. Go search. I do not wish to keep repeating myself.

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 12:59 pm

"so explain the above verse."
-------there you go again------------
how about..........
could you please explain the above verse?
or
I still cant figure out how you come to that conclusion, please explain.
or
could you explain the above verse please?
or
im still feeling frustrated with your interpretation of the above verse, can you please clarify your position?
get the idea?

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:36 pm

what I find fascinating, is that no one mentioned that obvious evolution occurred from adam harishon till now.
in that, adam was supposedly HUGE like over 10 feet tall, and yet, when you look at middle-ages man. or even modern day man, someone of only 7 feet is considered huge.there was some sudden change as far as height is concerned, who knows what other physical traits were changed. we also used to have anakim, which we dont have now......and nephilim........there is a lot of stuff that we have no real explanations of. there were a lot of physical manifistations mentioned in tanach, that simply among humans dont exist to date.

↑ Motek ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:41 pm

faigie wrote:

evolution is understood to mean improvements

the fact that people lived for hundreds of years and that there were giants many amos tall, and now there aren't, is not what we would call improvements

the meforshim explain why the life span decreased and the idea of nishtane ha'teva - that nature changed, is discussed in halacha. Teva first majorly changed after the Flood. Nothing to do with evolution.

↑ amother ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:42 pm

I stumbled on this analysis by a non-Jew

by Paul James-Griffiths, UK

After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers? On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed in the 5th century AD.2

Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.

I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

In fact, in the preface it says, ‘Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.’ Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal, imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological mysticism known as the Kabbala.

But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, ‘One day refers to the movement of the sphere.’ This shows that the common sceptical objection ‘how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created’ was solved in principle centuries ago. The ‘sphere’ referred to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its followers promoted a ‘flat earth’.3 But now we would say that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.

The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, ‘The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet ...’. This shows that they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day.

I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days.

In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day! But here they delved way beyond the information in the text. The Talmud says, ‘In the first hour his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second it was kneaded into a shapeless mass; in the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into him …’. But on Day 6, God created all the animals and brought them to Adam to name, then created Eve (Genesis 2:18–24).

We are even told that the ancient Rabbis did not bother to debate about the literal days so much as the actual month in a solar year when the world was made! The commentary says, ‘It appears that the ancients referred to Tishrei [September/October] as the first month, for in it creation was completed.’6

Search as I might, I could not find any reference to a day (Hebrew yôm) in Genesis 1 meaning any more than a literal 24-hour period. Some of the Rabbis did debate about Genesis 2:4, which says, ‘This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.’ However, in this case, yôm is prefixed by the preposition be, so beyôm, and was just an idiom for ‘when’. The days in Genesis 1 had no preposition, and had the phrase ‘evening and morning’ and a number, which are always indicators of ordinary days everywhere else in the Old Testament. None of the rabbis tried to juggle this ‘day’ (in Genesis 2:4) to suit pagan philosophy (the Greek philosophers held to a long-ages understanding). Instead, most of them correctly took ‘day’ here to mean ‘at the time when’ creation took place.

There was a popular prophetic understanding of a ‘day’ meaning the coming of the Messiah at the end of the world, but this had nothing to do with creation itself. The Talmud says, ‘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. … it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.’8

The Rabbis calculated these six thousand years by basing them on the six literal days of creation. They reasoned that one literal day of creation prophetically referred to a thousand years of history.

A number of old-earthers, including Hugh Ross, have misrepresented their teachings and claimed that they believed in thousand-year creation days, which as we saw above is not what they taught. Rather, they regarded the creation days as corresponding to, not equal to, thousand-year periods of earth history, with the seventh day corresponding to the millennium

Turning to some of the more modern Jewish scholars, I discovered a stubborn refusal to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. Professor Ginsberg had this to say:

‘There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation of the expression “day”. On the contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively demands that “yom” should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word “day” in common parlance, I.e. as a natural day.’12

Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (I.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13

My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal. As I left the London School of Jewish studies and passed a Jewish newsagent on the way back to the tube (London Underground train), I glanced at the Jewish Chronicle. It was dated in the year 5,760 since creation. It is roughly 6,000 years ago with no thought of millions or billions of years. This shows that they must have accepted a straightforward understanding of the creation days in Genesis 1 and the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11.

I smiled and disappeared into the bustle of the London rush hour.

Paul James-Griffiths has a B.A. in ancient history with classical studies from the University of Leicester, and a P.G.C.E. from the University of London. After teaching for three years, he joined the London City Mission. For the last five years he has been a West End Theatre Chaplain and a missionary to the New Age Movement, from which he was converted 20 years ago.

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n.asp

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:49 pm

evolution is not simply improvements, its a description of what has evolved. usually those evolutionary traits occur because of survival of the fittest, in a certain situation. but not always so.
a certain species of fish may have survived in an area, only because it hasnt been fished to death..........
but my point is, that there WERE changes. why there were changes is another story, but the human form has changed.........drastically.
yes they have found bones of human-ish looking creatures...........if they had some sort of nefesh, we dont know, and that doesnt mean they are anyones missing link ( which wasnt ever found anyway) but those human-ish creatures existed. that they were intelligent,, ok so even a monkey has intelligence, even an octopus can use tools........

↑ Motek ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:54 pm

faigie wrote:

but my point is, that there WERE changes. why there were changes is another story, but the human form has changed.........drastically.

and as I said, the meforshim explain why and not surprisingly, not one says that evolution is the reason, or do you have a Torah source that says it was the reason?

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 1:57 pm

motek, I never said the evolutionary theory was the reason........
now play nice.

↑ Motek ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 2:03 pm

could have sworn you wrote:

Quote:

what I find fascinating, is that no one mentioned that obvious evolution occurred from adam harishon till now.

play honest

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 2:11 pm

evolution also means a changing, not simply the evolutionary theory put into practice.
definition of evolution, or should I say definitions
# development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of ...
# (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I used it in the form of development.

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:41 pm

We're not discussing the basic idea of evolution-progression. Naturally, the world has progressed over the ages and no one will try arguing that. But this isn't the 'evolution' referred to in this thread.

What we're debating here is Darwin's theory of evolution and concept of origins. This doesn't comply with Torah at all.