comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden.  The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d.  There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.

Rav Soloveitchik refers to Adam I and Adam II. 

Anyone can look and see that the "details" differ from the original outline set out in Chapter 1.   It appears that there are multiple accounts, from the same G-d, written in the same document.   What's wrong with that?   The mistake of those Germans was in saying it wasn't written by G-d.   Why conflate their mistake with all of what they spoke about.   They are simply drawing the wrong conclusion from the facts.   But facts are facts.   

There are no details in the account that "differ" from the outline in chapter 1 when taken in context.  There is 1 account written by 1 G-d.  Just because some rabbi says otherwise doesn't mean anything.  You can find a rabbi to support any opinion.  For example, there are rabbis who believe in Kabbaloney.

Rav Soloveitchik is "some rabbi?"  

Do you realize that in his day he had the respect and admiration of all the great "haredi" gedolim and that he was considered a chacham despite what some nuts might claim today?   How dare you flippantly refer to him in this manner.

But aside from that, the point is not that since "one rabbi" said something it's therefore true and undeniable.  The real point is that first off, there are probably many more rabbis who would and/or have said it (and my rabbi agrees with Rav Soloveitchik that there are two accounts of creation BY ONE GOD WHO WROTE ONE TEXT WITH BOTH ACCOUNTS INCLUDED FOR A REASON - but the fact that Rav Soloveitchik himself said it shows that there's something to this view - he wouldn't say it without a basis.   You are trying to claim that the ONLY religious point of view is that Creation 1 and 2 are not two accounts but one total account - well obviously not all agree with you.    Pointing out Rav Soloveitchik shows that to accept that approach is certainly within Judaism.   It's certainly an acceptable view.  It seems YOU are using non-Jewish interpretations of the Bible to exclude a valid approach which you don't like.

It seems to me that where you err is that you conflate all the views of the german bible researchers as one unitary approach and then try to "pasul" (disqualify) that approach as non-Jewish.   Do you realize how many traditional Jewish questions on the Chumash which were asked by the classical medieval commentators are also asked by these same german god-deniers and subsequent bible scholars and critics?    They repeat many of the questions chazal and rabbis considered.   They answer them in different ways because of their mistaken assumptions.    So why is the question itself now pasul (disqualified)!?   (Depending on the case at hand,) it isn't.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?

So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all?  That's what I just said.  I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.

What?

I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"

So I clarified what I meant by my comment.

Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Can I ask why if Bereshith chapters 1 and 2 have disagreement with each other, therefore it's written by more than one person?

In my opinion, there are two accounts of Bereshith and both written by a single author - Moshe - in his received prophecy from God.   

You are tying the german philosophical assumption to the question when it has no place here.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The Germans I'm talking about are the ones who created the documentary hypothesis.  If the German G-d-haters and rabbis who don't accept the creation accounts would only take the scriptures in context then there wouldn't be problems like this.  Anyone can read for themselves and see this.  I would be interested to know what this "reason" is for the "differing" creation accounts.  Adam I and Adam II?  Please!  The nonsense some people try to pass off as spirituality.

We really need to be clear about the terms being used here.   I'm not talking about reform so-called rabbis.   Get that out of your head.   I'm talking about believing rabbis who certainly do accept the creation accounts.    So stop equating them with german bible critics!    I KNOW THAT GERMAN BIBLE CRITICS INVENTED THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS.    Was that unclear due to anything I wrote in the previous post?  I'm not sure why you say to me some of the things you say.

"I would be interested to know what this "reason" is for the "differing" creation accounts."

It certainly is interesting and I suggest you read up on his writings.  I'm not going to write a one-line summary here to over-simplify it and have you flippantly label it nonsense because of the way I present it.  Unfortunately though, without ever having considered it, you're already labeling it nonsense.   That's a real tragedy and a big mistake.

You should read "Lonely Man of Faith" where the idea is explored.

To be clear, once again, when I say there are two accounts of creation, I DO NOT MEAN that there were 2 "source texts" or two authors or two tales that got combined by an editor.   I mean that God intended for 2 views of maaseh bereshith to be incorporated in His Torah and this was deliberate, like everything else in the Torah, to teach us.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?

So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all?  That's what I just said.  I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.

What?

I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"

So I clarified what I meant by my comment.

Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.

I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work.  Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists.  I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.

Then there was a misunderstanding.   Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.

When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing.  I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote.  It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists.   I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!

To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists.     So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism.  It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches.  Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.

Have you ever actually been in a university? 

I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work.  Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists.  I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.

Wrong.  I never said the part in bold, nor was that intended.

I was defending my rejection of c4j's approach by saying that in doing so, I'm doing so as a scientist would - from the science perspective - I was certainly not saying c4J's approach is that of a scientist, that's the exact opposite of what I was saying.   Did you even read what I said?     When you said it was how atheists work, I thought that was an accusation against me for my attitude of rejecting c4j's approach as something not valid for scientific analysis.     So when I said scientists do it, I meant adopting my attitude, not the one I was criticizing.  Hope that clarifies.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

  A reading of the plain text shows that there are not 2 accounts of ma'ase bereshit, and I believe the reason you would accept this one rabbi's opinion on it is the same reason you would accept rabbis that accept evolution--in order to feel less self-conscious about your beliefs in modern society, instead of Heaven forbid reading scripture and believing in it.

Another comment I need to make on this statement of yours.

Once again you are assuming the worst in people and disparaging for no reason.   You have assumed that my ideas are false and therefore I can't possibly adhere to them and be a believer.   But these are ideas other believers also share.   The fact that you never considered them or that you never thought they were valid or consistent with religious belief does not make them wrong or irreligious!   You are making a false dichotomy here that by interpreting a certain way, I am disbelieving it.   A different interpretation does not mean I don't believe, it means I have a brain and use it and go with what's compelling to me, like any other person should.    Disbelieving would be if someone said the Torah wasn't true or some jewish cabal wrote it.    I don't share views like that, so why do you ascribe them to me?   

Btw, I believe what I believe based on evidence and investigation not because "modern society thinks so" - I could not care less what "modern society thinks."   And certainly modern society DOES NOT believe that the Torah was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai, and yet I DO believe that.   So don't give me this baloney about imposing modern societal beliefs onto scripture.   It sounds like you're afraid of certain ideas that go outside the box you're used to or that you haven't considered before.   I think that's tragic, but you're entitled to believe as you like - Just don't make unfair accusations against me or dishonest statements.   And don't call ideas invalid just because you never considered their validity or you thought otherwise.

And in c4J's case, I'm saying don't make the dishonest case that religious convictions are scientific arguments when they aren't.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism.  It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches.  Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.

Have you ever actually been in a university? 

I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...

Yes I've been to a university, and you see people out there supporting "Darwin Day" and at the same time "G-d off the dollar".  And this was like 10 or so years ago, just think what kind of atheist shrines modern universities must be now.

I never once "celebrated" Darwin (or any scientist) during my time in University and I worked in a research lab on top of my regular curriculum which was a science major.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?

So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all?  That's what I just said.  I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.

What?

I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"

So I clarified what I meant by my comment.

Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.

I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work.  Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists.  I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.

Then there was a misunderstanding.   Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.

When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing.  I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote.  It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists.   I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!

To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists.     So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.

I just thought it was funny how you accused creationists of doing exactly what atheists do.

I never accused "creationists" in general of doing anything.

Please read more carefully.   I was refuting the arguments that c4j was making, and I referred to him specifically and I was rejecting a non-scientific approach which he is trying to attach to science or determine scientific fact with.

If you think "atheists" do that - that's a generalization - it's not really relevant but congrats.  Personally, I don't think you can label all people in any group like that.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater because that would imply there is something valid about the 2 creation accounts theory.  

1.  What exactly is NOT valid about that?   Is there something wrong with it?  Please enunciate precisely what you find so egregious about an interpretation of 2 creation accounts and cite whatever relevant halachoth or Jewish sources you can as a basis to your opinion.

2.  Rav Soloveitchik gives credence to two different accounts of man in the 2 accounts of creation written by God.    I mean you want to throw eggs at him I guess, but what if I find more rabbis who agreed with that premise and also thought there's a basis in scripture to say so?   Specifically my rabbi also agreed to this premise, but maybe I can find famous ones and historical sources too.   Are you going to throw egg at them too?  And what justifies that you do so to Rav Soloveitchik?  

 The only reason that idea is widespread today is because of the Germans, not because of one rabbi who came to a similar conclusion.  

  So what?  What's the relevance of how popular the idea is or how it became widespread?  

Who are the rishonim that asked this question?  Did the rishonim believe overwhelmingly in the two creation theory?  I doubt it.

I don't know, but I was referring to OTHER QUESTIONS asked by bible critics.   There certainly are issues addressed by both sides and with very differing conclusions (since the critics start with mistaken assumptions and premises and then read everything into those premises - the rabbis start with the correct, Jewish premises and read into those).   Do you really deny that?   Or have you not looked into it?   If so, I assure you that that is the case.

 There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.

Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO.   Are you saying God created again in the garden of eden?   If so, why did He have to create everything twice?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?

So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all?  That's what I just said.  I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.

What?

I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"

So I clarified what I meant by my comment.

Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.

I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work.  Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists.  I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.

Then there was a misunderstanding.   Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.

When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing.  I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote.  It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists.   I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!

To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists.     So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.

I just thought it was funny how you accused creationists of doing exactly what atheists do.

I never accused "creationists" in general of doing anything.

Please read more carefully.   I was refuting the arguments that c4j was making, and I referred to him specifically and I was rejecting a non-scientific approach which he is trying to attach to science or determine scientific fact with.

If you think "atheists" do that - that's a generalization - it's not really relevant but congrats.  Personally, I don't think you can label all people in any group like that.

Ok then it's funny how you accused c4j of doing exactly what atheists do. 

Why is that funny?

I'm not really interested in what atheists do in this context.   

What are you implying with this?  If it's not to accuse either myself or c4j of being atheist, please tell me the point of your comment.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism.  It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches.  Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.

Have you ever actually been in a university? 

I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...

Yes I've been to a university, and you see people out there supporting "Darwin Day" and at the same time "G-d off the dollar".  And this was like 10 or so years ago, just think what kind of atheist shrines modern universities must be now.

I never once "celebrated" Darwin (or any scientist) during my time in University and I worked in a research lab on top of my regular curriculum which was a science major.

I was talking about what happens at universities in general, not what you personally did.

I never saw a Darwin celebration at my university and I was there for 4 years.   None of my friends, the majority of which were science majors, celebrated Darwin, while I was in university.   I think you are picking out some ridiculous things that certain atheists do and then painting that as if that defines all of academia or all scholars or all scientists.   This is frankly ridiculous.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

That's because you were already in the classrooms being indoctrinated, you didn't need to be recruited.

   Recruited to what?   To class?

  Plus just because you didn't see any of those particular movements doesn't mean they don't happen.  Everyone knows that universities are hotbeds of liberalism, which stems from atheism, and adheres to evolution as a religious tenet.  Why do you seem surprised that there was Darwin Day and G-d off the dollar being promoted?  You can see videos of atheist conferences on ZooTube at universities with speakers from the top of the scientific community.

 

Did I say that it never happened?   Did I say I was surprised?   You continue to misrepresent what I'm saying!   You should know that this is incredibly irritating.   

Now for the important quote of myself - I think you are picking out some ridiculous things that certain atheists do and then painting that as if that defines all of academia or all scholars or all scientists.   This is frankly ridiculous.

That these things happened does not "discredit science."   

It's amazing to me that you even cite articles in the Torah section by prominent ID proponents as if you are open to science but challenge certain conclusions (like the authors of these articles do).   But it is clear that you are not open to science.    You are constantly trying to discredit it for an assortment of irrelevant reasons like the university being a hotbed of liberalism, or "some people you know doing a darwin celebration so therefore science is a religion."   This is extremely nutty.

You also imply that the "evil university" is just a brainwashing factory and that somehow this is relevant to science and therefore science is a religion.   Well, howcome I wasn't brainwashed?   How come I wasn't brainwashed by liberalism at my university to be pro-arab and hate Israel (God forbid)?    Howcome while I was on campus I was fighting against the "Pro-Palestine" group?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

 There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.

Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO.   Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden?   If so, why did He have to create everything twice?

The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text.  I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.  That's the difference.  There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account.  You said the order is different, which it is not.

A difference, chapter 2, verse 5

"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."

That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1.   Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.

 It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text.  I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way.  I don't need halacha to know how to read though.  The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion.  This is not a good trend.

Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions.   And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And I remember specifically that Rashi comments on that verse that there was no man to pray for rain, and that's the significance and connection of the two end parts of the sentence.   Not only was there no rain and therefore no trees, but the last part of the sentence tells us why - there was no man to till the soil - the man whose job it is to pray for rain, so that rain falls and the trees then grow!

[muman613]

 There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.

Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO.   Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden?   If so, why did He have to create everything twice?

The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text.  I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.  That's the difference.  There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account.  You said the order is different, which it is not.

A difference, chapter 2, verse 5

"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."

That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1.   Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.

 It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text.  I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way.  I don't need halacha to know how to read though.  The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion.  This is not a good trend.

Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions.   And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."

KWRBT,

I don't know if your not aware but that is not a contradiction.

Hashem created all the vegetables and plant life on the third day, but it did not sprout above the ground until man was created on the sixth day. That is not a contradiction.

This is obvious when you read the Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=7781&p=2&showrashi=true

5. Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.
was yet on the earth: Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים This verse proves this, as well as another verse (Exod. 9:30):“ כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, You will not yet fear.” This verse too should be explained to mean that [no tree] was yet on the earth (Targum Onkelos). When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

[muman613]

And I remember specifically that Rashi comments on that verse that there was no man to pray for rain, and that's the significance and connection of the two end parts of the sentence.   Not only was there no rain and therefore no trees, but the last part of the sentence tells us why - there was no man to till the soil - the man whose job it is to pray for rain, so that rain falls and the trees then grow!

oh, sorry... I see you recalled the Rashi... Good!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

 There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.

Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO.   Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden?   If so, why did He have to create everything twice?

The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text.  I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.  That's the difference.  There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account.  You said the order is different, which it is not.

A difference, chapter 2, verse 5

"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."

That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1.   Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.

 It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text.  I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way.  I don't need halacha to know how to read though.  The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion.  This is not a good trend.

Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions.   And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."

KWRBT,

I don't know if your not aware but that is not a contradiction.

Hashem created all the vegetables and plant life on the third day, but it did not sprout above the ground until man was created on the sixth day. That is not a contradiction.

This is obvious when you read the Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=7781&p=2&showrashi=true

5. Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.
was yet on the earth: Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים This verse proves this, as well as another verse (Exod. 9:30):“ כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, You will not yet fear.” This verse too should be explained to mean that [no tree] was yet on the earth (Targum Onkelos). When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

Right but just on plain meaning - first account = 3rd day - way before man

second account = 6th day, after man.       

This begs the question, why the difference?   Obviously it's meant to teach something and there are lots of answers.   I think chazal and rashi and rishonim are answering this very question.   

Also I do kind of question the framework of this particular answer because what does it mean to "create" if not having a physical manifestation of the particular thing?  I mean to say, if they did not actually sprout out of the ground yet, what sense does it make to say He created them then (until that point finally occurs).    But I think that all such discussions ultimately center on the fact that the maaseh bereshith are not meant in the literal sense in terms of an order and timeline, but are certainly meant to teach man the deep spiritual insights and spiritual concepts embedded literally into the world at God's creation.

[edu]

christian4jews started this thread by seemingly finding contradictions between the current theory of evolution and creation.
As an introduction, his views are also held by some rabbis and are  legitimate.
However, most if not all his questions fall away once you remove, one questionable premise that he had.
christian4jews believes that each of the objects of the 6 days of creation were created separately, during the 6 days of creation, each on its respective day.
The view however, of many Rabbis is that everything was created in the first instance of creation Breishit/Genesis 1:1. In the 6 days [which may not have been 24 hour days, based on Tehillim/Psalms90:4, for scholars see also Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Vayailech #2 ] of creation all that was involved was restructuring of the existing materials to make them suitable for the world as we know it.
By properly interpreting the bible you can say these restructuring periods do parallel the views held by evolutionists.
What do I mean by properly interpreting the bible. christian4jews for example, assumed that the Hebrew word עוף "Oaf" of Genesis 1:20 means only birds, where if you look how the Bible defines the term elsewhere it will include in reality any flying creature and not just what we call birds.
Prof. Nathan Aviezer in his book "In the Beginning...Biblical Creation and Science" is an example of one person who tries to make the biblical creation account fit the the modern scientific theories.
I myself have thought of additional ways to make the 2  schools of thought go together, but I am not willing yet to put my explanations into writing.

[Zelhar]

Wow this thread has grown long !

So I want to clear something- I accept the principle of natural selection and the theory of evolution. I also accept the science of carbon dating, geology and science in general.

Some people like Richard Dawkins basically hijack the science and turn it into a religious hatchet to "prove" their atheistic religion. Of course I don't share their sentiment and I don't think it is fair to generalize anybody who accepts the scientific reasoning supporting evolution into the Dawkins category. Also, the Nazis invented the evolution inspired junk science of "social darwinisim" but it has really nothing to do with natural science, darwin or anything sensible.

[Zelhar]

I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden.  The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d.  There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.

I don't subscribe to the God haters' thesis. It is true that chapter two deals mainly with the prolog to the story of Eden, yet it also seems that there is a rearrangement of the account that is given in chapter 1: It appears that adam is created before the animals, and finally Eve is created after them. Also in chapter one, God permits every fruit to be consumed, but in chapter 2, God forbids Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge.

[Rubystars]

Sorry I didn't answer this sooner. I was going to answer it last night, but I had to go to work. I just got home again (I work an overnight shift). I know the thread appears to have moved on, but I still respect you enough to answer you.

Atheists accept devilution (sorry, I had to use that at least once on this forum) because they have religious objections to G-d.

Very few atheists are absolutely certain in their own minds that there is no God. Most atheists are not like that, from my experience in talking with them. Most simply have a lack of belief in God, which does not require faith or belief of any kind, just a lack of faith. If you press them, most atheists will admit that they can't say for sure whether or not there is a God, but they just don't believe in it because they don't personally see any good reason to.

With that settled, atheism doesn't require that one accept evolution, because it's not a belief system, just a lack of belief (or a very particular belief, depending on whether they're a "strong" or weak" atheist).

Atheism would be just as much atheism if everything sort of spontaneously popped into existence, as-is, as long as it didn't involve God.

I think most atheists accept evolution by default, not because it's somehow considered to be part of atheism, but because it's the prevailing scientific theory, and lacking religion, they don't have a religious objection to it.

They say they have no religion to create the illusion that they are completely objective and without bias.  The peer review system is flawed since they don't allow creationists to evaluate anything. 

Creationists don't have anything to present. They don't target their arguments to an audience of scientists. They know they can't win there because quite frankly the evidence simply is not on their side. They target the public instead, because many, many people are uninformed about a lot of the details of science that would be relevant to evolution, and will be easily misdirected by scientific sounding jargon. Just look at one of the recent threads on here. We had a guy who believes that the earth does not move right here on the JTF forum!

It's a monopoly, kind of like the Academy Awards--you can't have a decent movie win anymore because it's just become an exclusive group of agenda-driven loons getting together and giving each other awards.  The only reason some atheists are willing to get involved in new age crap is because it poses no moral challenge to them.

Creationists, especially young earth creationists, don't have a true testable model. The problem is a real scientific model has to be falsifiable, not "This is what the Bible says so that's my evidence". You don't expect a legitimate scientific journal to accept that do you?

 

Richard Dawkins is just as much of a religious extremist as the people he criticizes,

I think he's an anti-religious extremist. Just because I agree with him on a couple of things doesn't mean I agree with his vicious attacks on religious people. I think it's terrible. He believes that religion and science are mutually exclusive. I very much disagree with that.

and the only thing we learn from him about history is what the snake's voice in the Garden of Eden might have sounded like.

You picked up on that too? I also noticed this. He does sort of have a hissing quality to his voice. Creepy.

[christians4jews]

based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?

So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all?  That's what I just said.  I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.

i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.

Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.

Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate

1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...


2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"


Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in god, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.

[Rubystars]

i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.

You haven't really responded to the evidence shown to you.

Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.

Are you talking about Archeopteryx or Microraptor, etc?

Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate

1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...

Not all evolution takes that long, and besides, it's the creationists who say "you weren't there!" Scientists can look at evidence left behind to find out what happened in the past, and "see" it that way.

2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"

So if you understand evolution please explain to me what it is and how it works. Most creationists have a very distorted view of what it is.

Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in G-d, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.

That's not how it works. I love G-d.