how an old earth does not contradict the torah, and even has some support

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The Bible says G-d created the earth in six literal days and provides a clear geneaological timeline starting from Adam.

Why should I try to force Scripture to fit some g-dless atheist's notion of how old he thinks the universe should be?

I agree with this. If you believe in the Bible you believe G-d created a ready made world from scratch. He didn't make Adam a baby. He made him a grown man who in fact was one day old. So when G-d created man, the rocks and the trees he Created them with the scientific appearance of things looking older than they really are. Believing that is no more far fetched than the fact that something could be created from nothing.

But this was specifically about age of the universe.  And there is within our tradition, rishonim, etc that the 6 days *can be taken not literally.   It is a great difficulty actually to take them literally considering what many rishonim say about those passages.   Consider for instance Rashi.  According to him all was created on Day 1!  If that is the case, it is impossible to take it literally.  Obviously there is more to it.   And the hints in the text allude to it (in addition to our oral tradition about "secrets" of creation etc), but because of the way the language is in the text, this is why Rashi and others gave us these kind of insights.   In some instances to insist upon a "literal" reading is actually insisting upon a simplistic or incorrect reading, in contradiction to language and hints in the text, and that the "literal" reading is really when someone *doesn't take it literally!

Rashi and Ramban who say it was all created on Day 1 explain that the hiyuli (essential substance for creation) was created on Day 1 and then G-d "unfolded" from that essential substance the components neccesary for the particular creations of each day, but they never say that 6 days should not be taken literally.

I don't think it makes sense to say this and then also say that the day as we understand it and experience it was what G-d was operating within.  What we know as a day is the rising and setting of the sun (or from an external perspective, the rotation of the earth and the sun's relation to it).  So before the sun was created (or before it was "unfolded" if you want to use that term), what constituted a day?  Certainly not what we understand to be a day.  

Furthermore, when you use the term "unfolding" (I need to review the Rashi I don't remember well the description), could you explain what this means?  

Saying otherwise really messes with the whole reason we keep Shabbat.
We keep our Sabbath to remind us of how G-d created the world in 6 days (the Torah says that explicitly). If it wasn't really six days then we're not doing a very good job at all of reliving what happened then.

Shabbat is not "reliving" creation though.  It is a commemoration of creation.  And you could make precisely the opposite argument.  G-d wanted to give the Jewish people the gift of Shabbat and the way to do that was to name the account of creation within the context that we could understand by using the term day regardless of what it really amounted to from G-d's perspective as opposed to ours.  Thus rather than have a once every x billion years Shabbat, the stages of creation called days give us a once a week Shabbat.   Yes the stages of G-d's creation were for us like a day.  I do such and such one day then go to sleep wake up and accomplish such and such the next day, etc.  G-d doesn't have the same kind of limitations though.  That's essentially what it amounts to in terms of humans conceptualizing it.  It's describing G-d within our own framework, but does He operate within our own human framework?  

[Dr. Dan]

try reading my first post , it destroys your little arguments in at least 3 places.

Have you come to discuss, or to troll?

he came to discuss

[q_q_]

try reading my first post , it destroys your little arguments in at least 3 places.

Have you come to discuss, or to troll?

he came to discuss

It won't make any difference telling him that. So better to be wise and not bother. And not interrupt intelligent discussion with stupid discussion.

[MassuhDGoodName]

All of you are wrong!

It's not the number of DAYS in which Creation took place!

IT'S THE NUMBER OF NIGHTS!   

[briann]

Hey q_q ... Im 100% agreement with you on this...  And i think a lot of religious individuals are fine with the idea of an old earth.

[Dr. Dan]

try reading my first post , it destroys your little arguments in at least 3 places.

Have you come to discuss, or to troll?

he came to discuss

It won't make any difference telling him that. So better to be wise and not bother. And not interrupt intelligent discussion with stupid discussion.

what do you mean intelligent versus stupid?  It's an opinion that was made...

[q_q_]

A discussion of whether I am or am not a troll,  while there is intelligent discussion going on.

I am not going to respond further to you anymore on this stupid issue.  And the fact that you are of the opinion that I am not a troll, is irrelevant to me. 

[q_q_]

To YESHA, based on a brief discussion we had in PM. I would like to say this here..


The points I gave (which are all in first post here) weren't of the issue of old earth young earth being debated.

rather, the point that the 57xx years claim is FROM the creation of ADAM.  All agree on that.
There is no source that has it as from the beginning of the first day.

any debate , would be whether the days preceding Adam, were 24hr or eras.
But I didn't provide much of a debate on that.
I did mention about day 4, which would support that days 1-3 were not regular days. And we can't just assume days are 24hr. And I think (I read this very indirectly, so may be wrong) the RAMBAN mentions a tradition that 6 of the 7 days contained eras).

[Dr. Dan]

A discussion of whether I am or am not a troll,  while there is intelligent discussion going on.

I am not going to respond further to you anymore on this stupid issue.  And the fact that you are of the opinion that I am not a troll, is irrelevant to me. 

who is this a response to?

[DownwithIslam]

I don't think Q_Q is a troll as I know he has defended JTF against the puppy mill/biscuit feeder forum attacks and that is praiseworthy. With that aside, I can't really agree with Q_Q in any Torah based discussion as I know that you have expressed strong anti Lubavitch sentiment. To express hatred towards the one jewish group that really and sincerely loves every jew is beyond me and unforgivable. This is why I have to be skeptical of your Torah interpretations. I do not think you are a troll and I think we need to work together for the benefit of the cause but I have to say that I do not agree with you here or on the other issues.

[q_q_]

I don't think Q_Q is a troll as I know he has defended JTF against the puppy mill/biscuit feeder forum attacks and that is praiseworthy. With that aside, I can't really agree with Q_Q in any Torah based discussion as I know that you have expressed strong anti Lubavitch sentiment. To express hatred towards the one jewish group that really and sincerely loves every jew is beyond me and unforgivable. This is why I have to be skeptical of your Torah interpretations. I do not think you are a troll and I think we need to work together for the benefit of the cause but I have to say that I do not agree with you here or on the other issues.

Since nobody seems to have anything intelligent to say on the subject of the thread.

You are welcome to hijack this thread to make your claim. But QUOTE ME


I am quite lubavitch friendly.

And I know that there was a thread quite recently where Lulab made a post, which Tzvi -rightly- criticised.   You criticised Tzvi. And I said Tzvi was Right for criticising that post.  The post, and later the thread, revolved around the Moshichist issue within lubavitch, and the more extreme position of those that believe he never died.   These ideas should  at least be understood as controversial, and not mainstream.   They may be brought up in intellectual debate(IMO, despite the dangers to lurking ignoramouses).   But they should not be presented -in any form-, to a newcomer who is ignorant and asking for help. 
(And that is what Tzvi criticised.  And I would and did defend Tzvi criticising that)


And the fact that you don't see that, shows that you have something clouding your judgement. Maybe you think that lubavitch is a holy cow and no element of it can be criticised in any way. Maybe a person reading it wouldn't know what was going on, but I don't think you are naiive, or stupid. Maybe you had such hatred of Tzvi, that you are convinced his post was anti all lubavitch. And when I defended tzvi, you say I am against lubavitch. Whatever the psychology behind your poor judgement is. I have described the situation, see above paragraph, about the post and the moshichist and worse issue. And that was what the Tzvi's post was all about. And it's not anti lubavitch to defend that. Though you thought it was then, and clearly still do.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I was about to respond as well, but qq defended himself.   

I would stress to you DWI that is is not "hateful of Lubavitch" for someone to not be a Lubavitcher (ie disagree with aspects of Lubavitch outlook/theology and/or follow a different path within Torah Judaism).  You seem to confuse the two.  I am not a Lubavitch Chabad chassid, but that does not make me "anti-Lubavitch" and it does not make me view the Lubavitcher Rebbe any lesser, who I believe was one of the greatest Torah minds of the generation and a groundbreaking Jewish leader.  And chabad does some great work.   A person has a right to disagree on points of contention with various chassidic, charedi, MO groups, what have you.  This doesn't mean they 'express hatred' of that group.   I do not choose chassidishe path but I have no lack of respect for the greatest Torah minds and leaders within the chassidic movement.  And I love Chabad.  But I certainly disagree strongly with anyone who says the Rebbe was moshiach.  I have a right to disagree.  And I won't go after somebody over it especially here where we are focused on other things.   

A person ESPECIALLY has a right to disagree and point out his contentions on the issue of Chabad messichism, which even WITHIN CHABAD is a major point of contention.  If there was a non-messichist Chabad chassid on here (and they do exist despite the claims of some messichists), he would perhaps bring up the same argument as Tzvi!

[Mifletzet]

"Those who felt impelled to interpret certain passages in the Torah differently from the time-honoured tradition, did so only in the mistaken belief that the Torah view on the age of the world was at variance with science; otherwise they would not have sought new interpretations in the Torah. There is no need to seek new reinterpretations in the Torah to 'reconcile' them with science" (Lubavitcher Rebbe).

There is a solid body of scientific evidence for a young universe eg the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface,the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the dearth of human records and artifacts older than a few thousand years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy, pleochroic haloes etc etc

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

the decrease in the speed of light

Please explain.

[DownwithIslam]

I was about to respond as well, but qq defended himself.   

I would stress to you DWI that is is not "hateful of Lubavitch" for someone to not be a Lubavitcher (ie disagree with aspects of Lubavitch outlook/theology and/or follow a different path within Torah Judaism).  You seem to confuse the two.  I am not a Lubavitch Chabad chassid, but that does not make me "anti-Lubavitch" and it does not make me view the Lubavitcher Rebbe any lesser, who I believe was one of the greatest Torah minds of the generation and a groundbreaking Jewish leader.  And chabad does some great work.   A person has a right to disagree on points of contention with various chassidic, charedi, MO groups, what have you.  This doesn't mean they 'express hatred' of that group.   I do not choose chassidishe path but I have no lack of respect for the greatest Torah minds and leaders within the chassidic movement.  And I love Chabad.  But I certainly disagree strongly with anyone who says the Rebbe was moshiach.  I have a right to disagree.  And I won't go after somebody over it especially here where we are focused on other things.   

A person ESPECIALLY has a right to disagree and point out his contentions on the issue of Chabad messichism, which even WITHIN CHABAD is a major point of contention.  If there was a non-messichist Chabad chassid on here (and they do exist despite the claims of some messichists), he would perhaps bring up the same argument as Tzvi!

I know the difference between someone who is not a lubavitcher Chassid and an outright lubavitch hater. I am fine with having legit debates on these issues but it was clear to me from some of the previous discussions about this very issue that made me get the feeling that the hatred towards lubavitch which was espoused by certain people was frightening. Besides, the Chasidim who believe that the Lubavitcer rebbe was moshiach have very sound reasons for believing so. Their reasons are much more sound than those who criticise them and say they aren't jewish.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

 Besides, the Chasidim who believe that the Lubavitcer rebbe was moshiach have very sound reasons for believing so.

That's what you think.

But you are incorrect to put words in qq's mouth regardless.   And aside from that, I don't think you know what you're talking about in regards to moschiach and who he is or isn't.   But keep in mind, that is a topic of dispute WITHIN Chabad.   There are also Chabad chassidim who do not believe what you said.  They certainly don't hate Lubavitch either.

And I would add that outside of chabad, all mainstream (and fringe) orthodox groups disagree with that opinion as well.  You might say they could all be wrong while the messichists are right, but at some point you have to ask yourself why that is that everyone else disagrees and why it was so contentious.... And then check out the actual material in support or in opposition to the issue in question.  You will see very quickly and very obviously why it is that no Orthodox Jewish groups agree with Chabad messichistim, other than Chabad messichistim.

[DownwithIslam]

 Besides, the Chasidim who believe that the Lubavitcer rebbe was moshiach have very sound reasons for believing so.

That's what you think.

But you are incorrect to put words in qq's mouth regardless.   And aside from that, I don't think you know what you're talking about in regards to moschiach and who he is or isn't.   But keep in mind, that is a topic of dispute WITHIN Chabad.   There are also Chabad chassidim who do not believe what you said.  They certainly don't hate Lubavitch either.

And I would add that outside of chabad, all mainstream (and fringe) orthodox groups disagree with that opinion as well.  You might say they could all be wrong while the messichists are right, but at some point you have to ask yourself why that is that everyone else disagrees and why it was so contentious.... And then check out the actual material in support or in opposition to the issue in question.  You will see very quickly and very obviously why it is that no Orthodox Jewish groups agree with Chabad messichistim, other than Chabad messichistim.

Of course they have sound reasons for believing he is moshiach but that is not the crust of this debate. You obviously are not very sympathetic towards lubavitch and that is putting it mildly. And I know more about this than you think. I know that Lubavitchers are chasidim in the truest sense of the word.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Really?   So where's the beis hamikdash?

[DownwithIslam]

Really?   So where's the beis hamikdash?

I said I knew more about it than you think, not that I have explanations for everything. I myself am not a lubavitcher, I merely am neutral and don't like to see a wonderful group of jews attacked. I am sure a Meshichiast Lubavitcher Chasid could answer your question very easily. I know that the Lubavitcher rebbe fulfilled much of what Moshiach is supposed to. I think you should ask your question to a Lubavitcher, which I am not.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

[q_q_]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

it's ok, this is not  important.. he made his point of no substance, I responded.. And anybody can judge for themselves.  And if it was of any importance, then I would say to you, that as with the left, those that don't get it never will, and those that get it got it already anyway. So discussion is pointless.  And this discussion is of no importance anyway.

if people were to give any credence to DWI's empty post, after my response, then it would imply that their minds are defective, and the thought of defective minds mean nothing to me.  So there are really multiple reasons why I couldn't care less

[DownwithIslam]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

it's ok, this is not  important.. he made his point of no substance, I responded.. And anybody can judge for themselves.  And if it was of any importance, then I would say to you, that as with the left, those that don't get it never will, and those that get it got it already anyway. So discussion is pointless.  And this discussion is of no importance anyway.

if people were to give any credence to DWI's empty post, after my response, then it would imply that their minds are defective, and the thought of defective minds mean nothing to me.  So there are really multiple reasons why I couldn't care less

I am not a moshichiast, nor am I a lubavitcher. I only said that the way you discuss Chabad seems very hateful to a person viewing the posts. I saw the thread in which you were arguing with Lubab, who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and is much more qualified to answer your questions. He seemed to make things very clear.

[q_q_]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

it's ok, this is not  important.. he made his point of no substance, I responded.. And anybody can judge for themselves.  And if it was of any importance, then I would say to you, that as with the left, those that don't get it never will, and those that get it got it already anyway. So discussion is pointless.  And this discussion is of no importance anyway.

if people were to give any credence to DWI's empty post, after my response, then it would imply that their minds are defective, and the thought of defective minds mean nothing to me.  So there are really multiple reasons why I couldn't care less

I am not a moshichiast, nor am I a lubavitcher. I only said that the way you discuss Chabad seems very hateful to a person viewing the posts. I saw the thread in which you were arguing with Lubab, who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and is much more qualified to answer your questions. He seemed to make things very clear.

You are deluded. I didn't say you were a moshichist or a lubavitcher.

You seem unable to quote me
I will help you. You are now referring to a different thread, one where I debated lulab about his idea that every rabbi agrees. I did not criticise chabad/lubavitch at any point. The moshichist issue did not come up in that one.

[DownwithIslam]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

it's ok, this is not  important.. he made his point of no substance, I responded.. And anybody can judge for themselves.  And if it was of any importance, then I would say to you, that as with the left, those that don't get it never will, and those that get it got it already anyway. So discussion is pointless.  And this discussion is of no importance anyway.

if people were to give any credence to DWI's empty post, after my response, then it would imply that their minds are defective, and the thought of defective minds mean nothing to me.  So there are really multiple reasons why I couldn't care less

I am not a moshichiast, nor am I a lubavitcher. I only said that the way you discuss Chabad seems very hateful to a person viewing the posts. I saw the thread in which you were arguing with Lubab, who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and is much more qualified to answer your questions. He seemed to make things very clear.

You are deluded. I didn't say you were a moshichist or a lubavitcher.

You seem unable to quote me
I will help you. You are now referring to a different thread, one where I debated lulab about his idea that every rabbi agrees. I did not criticise chabad/lubavitch at any point. The moshichist issue did not come up in that one.

I agree, you did not say that I was a moshichiast or a Lubavitcher. The reason why I mentioned that was to explain to you why I do not know the intricacies about whether the rebbe is Moshiach or not. I never said I was a complete expert in regards to that. All I said was that the Lubavitchers are obviosly not insane and that they have valid reasons for believing in what they do. Their is no reason to attack them over this.

[q_q_]

Just two seconds ago you said they had valid reasons.   Either you know or you don't know.  Obviously now you are admitting you don't know.   Which begs the question..... Why get on Tzvi and qq so ruthlessly over calling this idea into question (actually they called into question using that stance to answer a beginner and/or presenting it as mainstream when it most certainly isn't). 

it's ok, this is not  important.. he made his point of no substance, I responded.. And anybody can judge for themselves.  And if it was of any importance, then I would say to you, that as with the left, those that don't get it never will, and those that get it got it already anyway. So discussion is pointless.  And this discussion is of no importance anyway.

if people were to give any credence to DWI's empty post, after my response, then it would imply that their minds are defective, and the thought of defective minds mean nothing to me.  So there are really multiple reasons why I couldn't care less

I am not a moshichiast, nor am I a lubavitcher. I only said that the way you discuss Chabad seems very hateful to a person viewing the posts. I saw the thread in which you were arguing with Lubab, who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and is much more qualified to answer your questions. He seemed to make things very clear.

You are deluded. I didn't say you were a moshichist or a lubavitcher.

You seem unable to quote me
I will help you. You are now referring to a different thread, one where I debated lulab about his idea that every rabbi agrees. I did not criticise chabad/lubavitch at any point. The moshichist issue did not come up in that one.

I agree, you did not say that I was a moshichiast or a Lubavitcher. The reason why I mentioned that was to explain to you why I do not know the intricacies about whether the rebbe is Moshiach or not. I never said I was a complete expert in regards to that. All I said was that the Lubavitchers are obviosly not insane and that they have valid reasons for believing in what they do. Their is no reason to attack them over this.

you can't quote me so just be quiet.