Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
Sefardic Panther:
“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!
“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".
“Don't twist(/liberally interpet) things into unskeptically saying the torah predicts a big bang and an expanding universe and a universe of 15 billion years. Because then when science changes, you'll lead alot of people to secularism”
I am not twisting Torah to match present day science. I am disputing the misconception that Kabbalah is just another ancient superstition. Anyway Yehudim should not be fallowing Torah because it matches science they should be fallowing Torah because it is their eternal covenant with G-d, what ever science says is absolutely irrelavent!!!
Shabat Shalom
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 05, 2008, 08:45:33 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 04, 2008, 08:51:12 PM ---
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
--- End quote ---
Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson" which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory. Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory. It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold. ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew. It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English. Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes, based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic. I do not altogether understand this issue though. It could be that he is correct.
--- End quote ---
Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that, but you do still have the ability to go through things logically, so you are not a lost cause like many would be. You didn't respond to that area of the argument so it's not very logical to discuss other things that relate to this.
Anyhow, the issue you quoted is a bit like this.. (walid shoebat mentions this in his book against scientific miracles in the quran). If a book says "there is an object, it has wings". Then somebody looks at it and says "this is a prediction of a UFO, it's a miracle". The fact is, it clearly isn't. People claiming that are READING IT IN.
Now, maybe if you had a time machine, the author could explain further in such detail that it's clear that he did mean a UFO! The point though, is that from what he said, we cannot conclude that he did. (to conclude it would involve other premises or other assumptions)
I would add a few points..
There is a difference between.
"I don't believe A" and "I believe not A"
furthermore,
saying that X does not "describe" Y, does not mean that X "describes" against Y.
also,
If somebody says A implies B, and a critic says A doesn't imply B, that doesn't mean that A implies NOT B.
q_q_:
SP is quoting me when he uses these quotes.
SP, try to learn how to quote people in a way that shows who you are quoting. The notation is not hard.
<quote author=jo>
....
</quote>
response
change <> to square brackets.
Anyhow.
--- Quote from: Sefardic Panther on December 05, 2008, 10:32:10 AM ---“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!
--- End quote ---
The next thing you say (with my response) is more important. Your thing above is just sillyness.
If you had read what I wrote in context and thought about what I was saying, it might have helped you.
RAMBAM accepted the Kabbalah that was referred to in the talmud.
That doesn't mean he accepted the Zohar. The Zohar wasn't discovered during his lifetime.
You played a silly game and said he was a kabbalist. As if that makes some kind of general point. Don't throw labels around like that.
There is a distinction between kabbalah referred to in the talmud, and kabbalah not referred to in there.
The thread subject is the Zohar.
I don't think you disagree.. You can't. Nobody does.
The point I was making that you responded to had nothing to do with whether the zohar was true or not. Does that confuse you?
--- Quote from: Sefardic Panther on December 05, 2008, 10:32:10 AM ---“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".
--- End quote ---
Even if that is indeed what the Zohar says.. (and according to the site below, it is)
But as I said, -a- criteria to consider is *was it known or believed at the time* (what is known by scientists or for early times, philosophers, since they took the place of the scientists)
I doubt that you ever really investigated this. You just throw these things at people to win them over by nook or crook. (though if you knew it was known, then it would be really crooked.. you probably just don't know because you didn't want to know!)
According to this anti-orthodox site
It was "known" at the time.
I did read somewher that - The idea of Earth's daily rotation on its axis was first brought by Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean (in the 4th century B.C.E - I see the idea that the earth spins on its axis is mentioned in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric
if you look for the word axis, you see relevant parts, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
". Hicetas and Ecphantus, two Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC, and Heraclides Ponticus in the 4th century BC, believed that the Earth rotated on its axis but remained at the center of the universe. "
If you think about it , then with an earth rotating on its axis. If you imagine a ball rotating as you shine a torch at it, then you could conclude that it is day on one half and night on the other.
(the reality has some more detail, but generally speaking that's right. But it was a known theory at the time)
It's still not bad that it managed to choose a correct theory(earth rotating on its axis). But there are of course other things in the Zohar about 7 lands and different creatures that are not verified by science / have no scientific basis.
If you consider the seemingly factual statements about the world in the zohar, and say some are scientific, then if it's good enough for that, it should also be good enough to say they that some aren't scientific.. You could say that the ones that aren't scientific are metaphorical or spiritual or science is somehow wrong, but with that kind of standard, you can't take too seriously the significance of things that do match, because with many things in there, you would expect some things to match(in this case anyway, of a theory about the earth that was believed by some at the time).
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 07:27:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 05, 2008, 08:45:33 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 04, 2008, 08:51:12 PM ---
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
--- End quote ---
Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson" which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory. Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory. It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold. ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew. It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English. Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes, based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic. I do not altogether understand this issue though. It could be that he is correct.
--- End quote ---
Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that,
--- End quote ---
If you don't see that it is human nature to do so, you are simply delusional. It's hard to believe you are even serious. I never said that that was what I was doing or what I am interested in or support. It's simply a common human behavior that is oft-observed. To assume otherwise is nothing but delusion. I'll reiterate. A person with a belief in a certain thing will find every possible way to justify it in the face of contrary evidence. In general, the person who can open his mind to contrary evidence/opinions and in the face of overwhelming support and rational appeal (in his own mind) of the contrary view, to reneg his starting opinion and adopt the contrary view- This person is a rarity indeed. Most people are not generally open to all opinions or viewpoints. Everyone has prejudices and certain prevailing 'wisdom' that they consider incontravertible fact, in every aspect of life. And this prevailing wisdom a person believes in serves as the foundational starting points for discussion of a given subject.
In today's terms, a "Kabbalist" begins with the prerequisite starting principle that the Zohar is true, authentic kaballah, authentic mesorah, written by Rashbi. Otherwise he could not really call himself a kabbalist. To expect a kabbalist to renounce this starting point and go from kabbalist to non-kabbalist by a matter of convincing, to me is simply not a rational expectation. He already thinks it is mesorah, so he will defend it as such. That jump has been made in anointing oneself as 'kabbalist' (or being anointed as such by followers). (And I imagine often that the arguments are, gadol x,y, or z says its mesorah, therefore it is).
Do you really think that every person who became a kabbalist went through and studied all the opinions against the zohar in depth, all the scholarship related to it, and then logically came to a decision one way or another? They most likely were taught it by someone who was knowledgable and they are aware that most gedolim consider it authentic. That is enough for most people. And you could make an argument that that alone should be enough. But to me this a special case. For one, the historical context it appeared in. The questionable circumstances regarding its early history and Moshe De Leon. And the incredible claims it makes (claiming prior authorship back to ~1200 years before it ever appeared). You have had gedolim make strong arguments against it. Even the scholarly opinions were mostly recycled and refined information from the objections of our own rabbis. The opinions of these rabbis are worth investigation on a very key and very serious hashkafic matter such as this. Despite what the "majority" says.
Only a very rare and unique person would be one who is open to discussion whether or not the arguments are convincing for or against and to choose the stronger side. Someone already deeply invested emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and other meaningful ways into the Zohar will not readily concede a point or consider these discussions even worthwhile or with merit. This type of discussion is not even in the ballpark. For someone with the starting point that it is true, it's your yetzer hara, that's all. Or you just don't trust the rabbis. It's a question that is not legitimate to ask. Although maybe not quite the same level, I would consider it like expecting a rabbi to acknowledge that heresy is a legitimate opinion. It simply isn't. To a person with "conviction" about a certain idea, he will feel similarly about the opinion against his belief (in any sort of area), even if what he believes is some extremely false notion like marxism or what have you.
Here in this very comment, you actually bring proof of my principle. You describe well the case of Muslims who "believe" that the Koran contains miraculous scientific descriptions hundreds of years ahead of its time, and who proceed to make every possible far-fetched, incorrect, misleading, dishonest, bizarre, and laughable twisting of reality to somehow fit nonexistant facts to this "belief." The Muslims simply have a conviction that the Koran is divine, and they will do any trick in the book (including bold-faced lies) to "support" their conviction. And there are a BILLION muslims. You really think I don't think that's a problem? Of course it is. But my eyes are open and I can acknowledge that this most certainly happens and is common human behavior, especially when it comes to 'religious' beliefs/convictions/dogmas! It surprises me that you could overlook the fact that we have seen much of the same in this very thread!
Granted, most people don't intentionally lie like the Muslims do, so they are an extreme case, but they prove the general point. In most cases, it will just be a person's desire to find ways to allow his belief to still be true. So he will find ways to reconcile things that to most rational people will sound incredibly far-fetched, unlikely, or irrational. Because he is unwilling to accept that it possibly could not be true. It has to somehow be true.
Furthermore, you haven't shown what it is about Ramban's idea that contradicts the concept of energy turning to matter in the initial phases of creation. That intial bit of matter (converted from energy) from a volatile gas mixture with high-speed particle collisions is something the scientists are now seeking. Ramban didn't have that kind of science at his disposal. Nonetheless, his concept is an ingenious one. If you have a way to explain how it's wrong, then do so. Saying x does not equal y or some other abstract irrelevant mathematical equation won't help.
I will point out that in halacha, something not observed by the naked eye is considered 'not there.' Ramban saying that the initial matter had pure potentiality and "no positive characteristics" does not necessarily mean it didn't exist or was complete nothingness. In fact, if it was initially energy that got converted to matter at the start of the creation of the world, I'm not sure what you or Rabbi Gottlieb takes issue with if describing energy as 'pure potentiality with no positive characteristics.' Up until quite recently that could be an accurate description of a concept of energy, which itself was not described in any meaningful or close to accurate way with any detail until a few hundred years ago and sooner. I am no way saying Ramban knew modern science or predicted the big bang theory or e=mc squared or anything even close. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that his general ideas about the creation of the world could be generally correct conceptually when compared to today's science. I would still hesitate to speculate about how the earth was created, regardless. But that is a sidenote.
--- Quote ---In 1021 AD, the Arabian physicist, Alhazen, in the Book of Optics, held light rays to be streams of minute energy particles, stating that "the smallest parts of light" retain "only properties that can be treated by geometry and verified by experiment" and that "they lack all sensible qualities except energy."
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#cite_note-3
An interesting subject.
q_q_:
KahaneBT, you said
"
anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise.
"
"
What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief? That's not foolish at all. It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers. Naturally.
"
Well, Natural could mean two opposite things here, so forget that word.
I ask you
Is that logical?
Is that deluded?
Note- I am certainly not saying the following about the Arizal in any of the positions I have suggested. But from you have said, what I quoted, it looks like you are saying that the Arizal would have used any possible claim to support his belief in the Zohar.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version