Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Fitting the 6 days of Creation into current scientific theory
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Furthermore he quotes the Rambam in asserting that assigning any kind of "date" or timepoint to the world's creation is a form of paganism because it limits God within time. (Thus the entire debate on the "age of the world" misses the point!). So as to what is scientifically measurable, the world is billions of years old, but we cannot put a precise date on it.
As to the question then of how can the account in genesis be made to fit scientific theory - that account is not a scientific description and neither is Torah a science book. The point of the account of creation is not to tell us what order and on what date conifer trees and hippo's began to exist.
Tag-MehirTzedek:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on February 12, 2012, 12:26:12 PM ---I believe the wisest approach on this matter is that of Rabbi Meir Triebitz, who explains that creation ex nihilo preceded any scientific facts and therefore the earliest presumed event accepted by scientists (the big bang) has absolutely nothing to do with creation because matter already existed prior to the big bang, and the sscientific modeling of the big bang retrofits and assumes the existence of einstein's laws prior to the event (which enabled it to happen). People who say that the big bang coincides with G-d's creation of the world are actually denying creation ex nihilo and asserting that einsteins equations created the world rather than G-d. True creation ex nihilo literally means from nothing - nothing physical existed prior - not time, not matter, not anything.
--- End quote ---
I don't know much about this, but from what I heard, the claim by scientists (I heard in a program) is that time and space started together during the big bang. Personally this is mind boggling to even think about.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
I agree with Tag Mechir Tzedek that Rabbi Natan Slifkin is also a great resource for various approaches to this subject. I have gained a lot from his writings and I own a few of his books.
Edu, while you might not follow his approach, Rabbi Slifkin cites statements from chazal, rishonim, and acharonim to support his position (actually, the multiple potential approaches to the subject that he offers to the reader).
On the subject of Shalit, if I remember correctly, his opinion of the matter was far more nuanced than you give him credit for (he did point out both positive and negative aspects, didn't he?), but that really has no bearing on the subject of this thread anyway. Rabbi Slifkin has an expertise in zoology and he studied the issue of creation and science in depth to produce his books including surveying the classical sources within Judaism. Either the sources are valid, or they are not. To date, no one has disputed any of his citations. His own speculative ideas (which if memory serves me, are relegated to separate sections in his book where he makes it clear that he is synthesizing his own possible theories as opposed to other sections of the book where he merely quotes different approaches of historical figures in Judaism to various questions and explains them) are built off of these citations.
I think one of the main reasons that Rabbi Slifkin's work is necessary and why he himself does not use an approach like the one you asked about (ie "that plugs in all the details of the creation story, into something that fits the Chronological Order of things that occured on the Earth as accepted by Science today"), but offers additional sources instead, is that the details in chronological order and on the timeline of the creation narrative do not fit with the order as proposed by scientific knowledge.
The Rambam classifies what are called "days" of creation in Bereshit as categories and heirarchies of creation, rather than literal days or periods of time. Edu, is this, in your opinion, also "denying the literal truth of Genesis chapter 1?"
edu:
For those that understand Hebrew, I found a video that in part gives the type of approach that I was looking for:
http://www.hidabroot.org/MediaDetail.asp?MediaID=860
Although, I might not agree with every comment he (Rabbi Zamir) makes in the video, at least it's a starting point. The same can be said for the writings of Prof. Natan Aviezer on the subject.
To Kahane-Was-Right Bt
Here is the link where Slifkin endorses the insane Gilad Shalit deal
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/10/gilad-is-not-number.html
I think Slifkin also misrepresents Rambam. Rambam said if the Science of Aristotle was indeed proven to be correct without a doubt, he would be forced to reinterpret the Torah. However, he didn't think Aristotle's Science was beyond a shadow of a doubt and did not agree with Aristotle, on such issues as the eternity of matter. In fact, science now says Rambam was right and Aristotle was wrong.
Slifkin uses Rambam's theoretical willingness to change the interpretation of the Torah in light of absolute proof, as confirmation for his willingness to tamper in strange ways with the literal meaning of the Torah, based on certain Scientific Theories, which I personally don't believe are so solidly based, for example, proofs or lack of proofs from so-called fossil records.
Finally you mentioned:
--- Quote ---The Rambam classifies what are called "days" of creation in Bereshit as categories and heirarchies of creation, rather than literal days or periods of time. Edu, is this, in your opinion, also "denying the literal truth of Genesis chapter 1?"
--- End quote ---
Before commenting I would like to see the exact statement of the Rambam, to see if you are representing it properly. Where exactly is it found?
edu:
To avoid confusion the Rabbi's Full name in the Hebrew movie link I brought above is
Rabbi Zamir Cohen.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version