16 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION

I am disappointed in the great Astrophysicist Carl Sagan for committing the same mistake of most literal interpreters of the Genesis account of creation, as to criticise our People for believing that the universe is only six thousand years old. (Cosmos p. 259) Since He has been dead already, I would like to share with his disciples still left behind, the following piece of wisdom.

No, we, the Jewish People, save exceptions, do not advocate that the universe is only six thousand years old. This idea comes from the need to establish the weekly cycle, which would end with the establishment of the Sabbath day of rest; and for us, mind you, not for God, Who has never ceased creating; hence the expansion of the universe. But it seems that non-Jewish criticism, especially from among atheists insists on Jewish literal interpretation, perhaps either to curb Jewish excesses of wisdom or psychological need of ammunition against theists.

Since a day in prophecy is compared to a period of time, which could run into thousands, millions, or billions of years, the six days of creation can very well be interpreted as six periods of thousands, millions, or billions of years.

The order of the days IMO, is not relevant, as it is meant to culminate with man, as the crown of creation. It is only obvious that the sun was in the sky for light by day and the moon and stars for lights by night, to account for the first three days. Anyways, the whole thing is just an allegory to other ends than to creation itself. The bottom line to this thread is to bring to light that we do not take the six days of creation in the literal sense of the word.

Ben

[Imaginarynumber1]

That sad part is that some people do take it to literally mean six twenty-four hour days.

[Leonardo]

Ben Masada, on 01 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

The order of the days IMO, is not relevant, as it is meant to culminate with man, as the crown of creation. It is only obvious that the sun was in the sky for light by day and the moon and stars for lights by night, to account for the first three days. Anyways, the whole thing is just an allegory to other ends than to creation itself. The bottom line to this thread is to bring to light that we do not take the six days of creation in the literal sense of the word.

Ben

With all due respect to the modern beliefs which incorporate this idea of "timeless days", how can we be sure that was the prevailing belief at the time of the writing of the scripture?

Cultural beliefs evolve, especially in tandem with knowledge as scientific discoveries discredit prevailing beliefs. Take the archaic belief the sky was a vault, with the stars mere twinking lights set in it. While this belief is still poetically apt, it can no longer be said to have any foundation in reality - yet it is what many ancient peoples believed actually was.

As beliefs evolve we have poeticised what was written as belief centuries and millenia ago. Nothing wrong with that, but it does not behoove us to replace what was believed in archaic times with what is believed now - that would be false.

[eight bits]

Ben, is there something personal between you and Carl Sagan? Are you talking about this sentence in a footnote from Cosmos?

"A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions, and the Indians of billions."

If so, then how is this an adverse comment on "our People?" Putting aside that Sagan was culturally Jewish, and so a poor candidate for anti-Semitic ranting, the best-known "Europeans" who believed from the Bible an age in the thousands for the Earth were people like Bishop James Ussher, Church of Ireland, and other Christians. If this is not the right sentence, then could you quote the offending passage for us?

Quote

This idea comes from ...

... mostly correlating Biblical events with dates from other sources, back to, say, Babylon, and from there working back through the Biblical geneaologies. Ussher's chronology was especially prized because it put the creation a nice round 4000 years before the classical year of Jesus' birth, and there were 1000 years between Solomon's Temple and Jesus.

It is only too painfully obvious that for Ussher, a year was a year.

[brizink]

This is the best way I've heard this explained and should settle all the hoopla, at least temporarily And for the record, Ben was in no way making anti-Simitic comments or in anyway alluding to an anti-Semitic sentiment. The fact that he is referencing a Jewish physicist is purely coincidental, Carl Sagan being Jewish is neither here nor there. He is merely an example of many scientists throughout history that make comments about religion when science is their area of expertise and is not a subject they are familiar enough with to be making serious comments about. That being said; I am also Jewish and this reminds me of the old adage... "two Jews, three opinions" I actually happen to agree with Ben but I'm sure there is something we could find to disagree on. Also Mr. Eight Bits, that's all based on the genealogies from the new testament coupled with genealogical findings from the Torah. On top of that, many people mentioned in the NT are not mentioned in the Torah and we cannot accurately establish their ages or even if they existed at all. Presumably some were added to those who could be biblically confirmed to fill the gaps in the timeline. Regardless of genealogies it's where the story begins not necessarily creation and to presume that people advanced enough to track the heavens and build great monuments are as ignorant and unsophisticated as 6th century Europeans or even Babylonian idol worshipers is in and of itself arrogant as well as ignorant.

http://www.chabad.or...0-Years-Ago.htm

[eight bits]

Hello, brizink, I didn't say that Ben made anti-Semitic comments. This is the second thread, however, in which Ben has called out the late Carl Sagan for allegedly making statements unbecoming for a scholar. This is also the second thread in which it turns out that Carl Sagan hadn't made an inappropriate statement.

In discussing the geneaologies, I was only explaining the method used by the Seventeenth Century Irish Protestant scholar James Ussher to arrive at the best-known European "six thousand year" figure. It should be obvious that there is a big difference between knowing how somebody arrived at a conclusion and approving of either the conclusion or the method.

If it is somehow unclear, then let me say that I believe that the Earth is orders of magnitude older than Ussher's estimate, and that the source of his error was the utterly deficient method he used.

[IamsSon]

Is this a blog post?

[ZaraKitty]

Oh dear, people don't actually think the world is only a few thousand years old.. do they?

[Ben Masada]

Imaginarynumber1, on 03 June 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

That sad part is that some people do take it to literally mean six twenty-four hour days.

They are usually fundamentalistic believers who, instead of applying their time to learn, trust that their faith will do the work for them.
Ben

[Imaginarynumber1]

Ben Masada, on 09 June 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

They are usually fundamentalistic believers who, instead of applying their time to learn, trust that their faith will do the work for them.
Ben

True, but unfortunately those fundamentalists are increasing in number here in the US and are finding their way into policy making positions.

[Ben Masada]

Leonardo, on 03 June 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

With all due respect to the modern beliefs which incorporate this idea of "timeless days", how can we be sure that was the prevailing belief at the time of the writing of the scripture?

Cultural beliefs evolve, especially in tandem with knowledge as scientific discoveries discredit prevailing beliefs. Take the archaic belief the sky was a vault, with the stars mere twinking lights set in it. While this belief is still poetically apt, it can no longer be said to have any foundation in reality - yet it is what many ancient peoples believed actually was.

As beliefs evolve we have poeticised what was written as belief centuries and millenia ago. Nothing wrong with that, but it does not behoove us to replace what was believed in archaic times with what is believed now - that would be false.

At the time the Scriptures was written, the report was given according to what the writer could physically perceive in the skies. Hence, the universe was described as a vault with the stars twinkling underneath.  With further generations, as learning evolved, the truth would take new dimensions. The wisdom resides in the power to adapt the terms used when knowledge was too elemantary and fit it according to the actual achievement of learning.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 09 June 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[Ben Masada]

eight bits, on 03 June 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Ben, is there something personal between you and Carl Sagan? Are you talking about this sentence in a footnote from Cosmos?

"A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions, and the Indians of billions."

If so, then how is this an adverse comment on "our People?" Putting aside that Sagan was culturally Jewish, and so a poor candidate for anti-Semitic ranting, the best-known "Europeans" who believed from the Bible an age in the thousands for the Earth were people like Bishop James Ussher, Church of Ireland, and other Christians. If this is not the right sentence, then could you quote the offending passage for us?


... mostly correlating Biblical events with dates from other sources, back to, say, Babylon, and from there working back through the Biblical geneaologies. Ussher's chronology was especially prized because it put the creation a nice round 4000 years before the classical year of Jesus' birth, and there were 1000 years between Solomon's Temple and Jesus.

It is only too painfully obvious that for Ussher, a year was a year.

No, nothing personal.  it was from "Cosmos" that made me feel a little disappointed but, by the same token, I soon found out that I was a little too rash, at coming to that conclusion, because, to round up to six days, in allegorical terms, one was rather more in tune with reality than, to establish a definite amount of thousands or of millions years, considering that six days in metaphorical terms, can be interpreted as being six periods of time. No way to say that the Jewish idea for the wrigin of the universe could be wrong, because, according to new researches, it can always be proved that he was right. Six periods of time can be always taken according to new discoveries.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 09 June 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[rashore]

Ben... Could you give us the actual quote from the book that you are referring to please?

[Ben Masada]

IamsSon, on 04 June 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Is this a blog post?

Nope, it is a post to be shared with all the other posters.

Edited by Ben Masada, 09 June 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Ben Masada]

ZaraKitty, on 06 June 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Oh dear, people don't actually think the world is only a few thousand years old.. do they?

Oh yes, Zara. Many do, especially those of the literal interpretation club. It doesn't matter to them that we are within the 21st Century and so much research has been made to prove that the Genesis account of Creation is just an allegory.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 09 June 2012 - 06:18 PM.