Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

121 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

"While the creation evangelism message is helping to win many people to Christ, there is strong resistance within parts of the church. While most attacks focus on the science involved, many otherwise conservative theologians claim that Genesis really doesn’t mean what it says, is not meant to be a historical record, or that it’s not really so important anyway. Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, I asked a real Hebrew scholar, Dr Ting Wang, about what the author really meant."  

 

http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

that is very nice, you found another person that believes as you do.  Congratulations.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"While the creation evangelism message is helping to win many people to Christ, there is strong resistance within parts of the church. While most attacks focus on the science involved, many otherwise conservative theologians claim that Genesis really doesn’t mean what it says, is not meant to be a historical record, or that it’s not really so important anyway. Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, I asked a real Hebrew scholar, Dr Ting Wang, about what the author really meant."  

 

http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

Just curious, are you going to allow equal time (to be fair) and present some Hebrew scholar who doesn't believe in a young earth?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

"While the creation evangelism message is helping to win many people to Christ, there is strong resistance within parts of the church. While most attacks focus on the science involved, many otherwise conservative theologians claim that Genesis really doesn’t mean what it says, is not meant to be a historical record, or that it’s not really so important anyway. Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, I asked a real Hebrew scholar, Dr Ting Wang, about what the author really meant."  

 

http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

Just curious, are you going to allow equal time (to be fair) and present some Hebrew scholar who doesn't believe in a young earth?

 

I don't see any old earthers on the boards presenting scholars who disagree with them.  Yet if I don't post from the other side I'm the one being unfair???

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Very interesting, despite the annoying dialog in the background.  Doesn't leave much wiggle room.  You should check out the Evolutionary FairyTale website http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/.  They are overall a very unpleasant crew if you disagree with them.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, time for the other side. Here is my Hebrew scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder who will blow you away with his writings from both a scientific perspective and and Biblical one. He says both may be correct- 15 billion years and 6 days.

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

Side note: this article is best read in its entirety, but if you are intimidated by its length, just read the last sectio- 15 billion years or 6 Days. I promise you, you will be blown away and fall to your knees in utter humility and praise as I did.

Here we are arguing who is right, 15 billion years or 6 days and both are right. Find out how. Be blessed.

Spock out

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, time for the other side. Here is my Hebrew scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder who will blow you away with his writings from both a scientific perspective and and Biblical one. He says both may be correct- 15 billion years and 6 days.

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

 

What a great article, thanks for posting that!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, time for the other side. Here is my Hebrew scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder who will blow you away with his writings from both a scientific perspective and and Biblical one. He says both may be correct- 15 billion years and 6 days.

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

 

What a great article, thanks for posting that!

Thanks. That article is UNBELIEVABLE the way it discussed time from different perspectives. I still have chill bumps reading and pondering the implications.

Honestly, this thought makes me get on my knees in utter worship to know my God is soooooooo biggggggggg. And to think we here think we could come up with this nice little finite equation to explain the universe.

This article also humbles me and should humble everyone who bows their knee to God- don't put him in some finite box. He is much much bigger than that. His ways are not ours. We speak with so little knowledge relatively speaking. Isn't it interesting that a young Jewish man named Einstein was given a glimpse of knowledge that few can comprehend-the relativity of time.

All praise and honor to the Ancient of Days, for he is worthy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I once read a book by him, Genesis and the Big Bang. It was thought provoking.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

that is very nice, you found another person that believes as you do.  Congratulations.

 

~

 

Found A Hebrew Scholar Who Reads The Bible

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

And Believes

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

And Dear One

No Matter Where

You Choose To Stand

On The Veracity Of The LORD

 

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

 

Without Jesus

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

You're Done

 

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

 

Love, Joe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I once read a book by him, Genesis and the Big Bang. It was thought provoking.

I just ordered it on Amazon. Can't wait to get it. I admit, I struggle understanding some of these scientific concepts, but I'm going to get on my knees praying fervently for God to enlarge my brain neurons just for the reading of that book. Lol

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, time for the other side. Here is my Hebrew scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder who will blow you away with his writings from both a scientific perspective and and Biblical one. He says both may be correct- 15 billion years and 6 days.

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

Side note: this article is best read in its entirety, but if you are intimidated by its length, just read the last sectio- 15 billion years or 6 Days. I promise you, you will be blown away and fall to your knees in utter humility and praise as I did.

Here we are arguing who is right, 15 billion years or 6 days and both are right. Find out how. Be blessed.

Spock out

 

Spock

 

"Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists."

Dr. Gerald Schroeder

 

I've run across these gentlemen in past and also have run across bits and pieces of the subject matter and conclusions thereof that Dr. Schroeder concisely arrived at.

 

The "erev" and 'boker" and it's relationship to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) is something that struck me a couple years ago as very compelling and I speculated about this very subject on a number of threads.  I have never been dogmatic about it because I'm not a Hebrew Scholar and the fact that I'm a "Baby Christian" ...I just found it interesting.

 

There is one word that slapped me right in the face and left me looking for the exit...."Kabbalists!!"  You do your own research which I vehemently suggest....I will not be speaking of this again.

 

Overall as whole, the feeling I got right from the beginning of the article was an overwhelming sense to try and fit GOD'S WORD with man's word.  The Presupposition of:  Big Bang, 14 billion years, Fossil age, and Dinosaur Age treated as FACTS is quite troubling to me.

 

So your position is.... there is room in Scripture for Millions/Billions of years and the compelling factor with that is.... "science" has PROVEN these Long Ages?

 

Ok.  Please start with the Big Bang. Then lets go through each one in isolation to thoroughly eval merits and efficacy of each.

 

Thanks

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science.  I have not seen or heard anyone on here that claims science has proven the age of the earth.  Science is a tool that helps us to understand things and to improve our world.  It is often funny to read people on the internet bashing science, when there would be no internet if not for science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings  Looking...

     Finally....we agree!!!!    But we do not have to,so don't get me wrong....I can understand people having different opinions & understandings & they are to be given respect even if we do not agree........I do like what you said about science as a tool for man.....it is just that.

    Not everything is a "Salvational" issue & its okay to think differently ,God did not create little robots all programmed to think & act alike......thats why it is even more a time to celebrate with one another when each one comes into the joy of their Salvation!!!!!

     As Joe says,"Without Jesus-you're done!"  who cares if one thinks in an old or young earth?.......I believe every God inspired Word of the Bible is true,literally....some think it is allegorical or metaphorical....John 3:16 tells us what is really important!

                                                                                                                                           With love,in Christ-Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science.  I have not seen or heard anyone on here that claims science has proven the age of the earth.  Science is a tool that helps us to understand things and to improve our world.  It is often funny to read people on the internet bashing science, when there would be no internet if not for science.

 

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science"

 

What is the point then?

 

"I have not seen or heard anyone on here that claims science has proven the age of the earth."

 

Well this is the 14th message on this thread and I suppose technically you're right.... nobody (on this thread) has.  In the Dr. Schroeder article was the age of the earth/fossils/dino's represented as long ages?

 

"Science is a tool that helps us to understand things and to improve our world."

 

I thought technology did that....

 

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."  Wiki

 

Science...."Testable Explanations".  Sounds like a Proof to me.

 

"Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia) is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function." Wiki

 

Technology.....(Solve, Improve, Achieve, Handle).

 

"It is often funny to read people on the internet bashing science, when there would be no internet if not for science."

 

Don't have any idea of the "People" "Bashing Science.  I surely don't.  However, I do have a problem with people equivocating "Empirical/Operational" science with (evolution, paleontology, anthropology, cosmology et al) then fallaciously attempting to somehow connect my belief/disbelief in the tenets of these with my use of computers/cell phones, refrigerators, medical technology when these were birthed from Empirical/Operational science..... so as to show some kind of a contradiction.  I fail to see the connection or relevance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What is the point then?

 

 

The point then is..."Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."  Wiki

 

I thought technology did that....

 

 

 

You do not have technology without science.

 

Science...."Testable Explanations".  Sounds like a Proof to me.

 

 

 

Then it would read "Provable Explanations", not testable.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

 

Believe it or not, I actually understood all of that!

 

Fascinating.

 

One point that struck me:

 

"Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam."

 

Some years ago, I saw a program that made an interesting claim, that there was an "evolution" in the human brain that makes us "modern humans" - I can't recall what it was, but it was incredibly significant. This change was found to have occurred about 6000 years ago.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science"

 

What is the point then?

 

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

What is the point then?

 

 

The point then is..."Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."  Wiki

 

I thought technology did that....

 

 

 

You do not have technology without science.

 

Science...."Testable Explanations".  Sounds like a Proof to me.

 

 

 

Then it would read "Provable Explanations", not testable.

 

 

"You do not have technology without science."

 

That doesn't make them the same...you're equivocating again.  If not then there wouldn't be the word "Technology".  Also it would've been more accurate to say "You don't have Technology without Empirical/Operational science", right?  Would it be fair to say that we would have cell phones without the study of fossils?

 

"Then it would read "Provable Explanations", not testable."

 

Why would you attempt "Provable Explanations" sir if you weren't searching for TRUTH then supporting it with EVIDENCE??  Why do Scientists conduct experiments?.....to make informed speculations or to eventually discover TRUTH?

 

Moreover, what is the goal of bringing Forensic Scientists into a courtroom?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science"

 

What is the point then?

 

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time.

 

 

"The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof."

 

Agreed and it's usually those "sciences" that fall outside Empirical/Operational science

 

 

"But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions."

 

To establish TRUTH, right.  Then what do you use in support of that TRUTH to bring it above speculation....evidence?  Also your "Has Been" discovered denotes in the past or Unobserved phenomenon..... That means it's Forensic or Historical Science and not Empirical/Operational science.

 

"Very few things are actually "proven"

 

How about the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Biogenesis are they proven?  or are they just speculations or falsehoods?

 

"After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven"

 

Is 1 + 1 = 2  a Math Principle?  Is the previous math statement true?  Can we prove that to establish TRUTH?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@LookingForAnswers

 

"You do not have technology without science."

 

I use an Oven to make a Pineapple Upside Down Cake...are you saying my Pineapple Upside Down Cake is an Oven?

 

Science and Technology are two different terms

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science"

 

What is the point then?

 

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time.

 

 

"The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof."

 

Agreed and it's usually those "sciences" that fall outside Empirical/Operational science

 

 

"But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions."

 

To establish TRUTH, right.  Then what do you use in support of that TRUTH to bring it above speculation....evidence?  Also your "Has Been" discovered denotes in the past or Unobserved phenomenon..... That means it's Forensic or Historical Science and not Empirical/Operational science.

 

"Very few things are actually "proven"

 

How about the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Biogenesis are they proven?  or are they just speculations or falsehoods?

 

"After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven"

 

Is 1 + 1 = 2  a Math Principle?  Is the previous math statement true?  Can we prove that to establish TRUTH?

 

 

OK, Enoch - I do not know what your body language actually is, but your post comes across as having a lot of angst, and I feel like responding something between, "Calm down," and "What is your point?"

 

In any event, I feel like walking back very slowly and just let you be.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@LookingForAnswers

 

"You do not have technology without science."

 

I use an Oven to make a Pineapple Upside Down Cake...are you saying my Pineapple Upside Down Cake is an Oven?

 

Science and Technology are two different terms

 

Yes, they are two different things, the latter normally leads to the former.

 

And MRI is technology that is based upon science.  Without the science behind magnetism and electricity this technology would not work.  This is the same behind every piece of technology that we employ today.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, time for the other side. Here is my Hebrew scholar, Dr. Gerald Schroeder who will blow you away with his writings from both a scientific perspective and and Biblical one. He says both may be correct- 15 billion years and 6 days.

This article is deep so you will definitely have to put on your thinking cap. Cheers.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?tab=y

Side note: this article is best read in its entirety, but if you are intimidated by its length, just read the last sectio- 15 billion years or 6 Days. I promise you, you will be blown away and fall to your knees in utter humility and praise as I did.

Here we are arguing who is right, 15 billion years or 6 days and both are right. Find out how. Be blessed.

Spock out

 

Ah yes...  Gerold Schroeder and his time dilation theory.   Has anyone read his book?   It really isn't all that impressive when you get into the more detailed information contained in his book.  It is really nothing more than a variation on the day-age hypothesis.   This is because he is also an evolutionist.

 

The comment he makes about having two clocks, one on earth and one some other place in the universe where 15 billion years on earth is only 6 days in another part of the universe, doesn't really jive with Genesis because God isn't in another part of the universe where time is passing by at such a blinding rate of speed. He is hovering over the earth in Gen. 1:2  

Furthermore the narrator perspective of Genesis 1 is that of a person standing on the earth watching everything happening around him.  It is not written from the perspective of someone looking at the events of creation from some distant location that would make 15 billion years feel like six days.  The narrator is giving his description as if he is experiencing it in real time, six days. 

Also I would point that Schroeder, in his book and in this article, gives various erroneous and incorrect definitions of Hebrew words.  Here is what he says in the article:

 

"Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" ― but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet ― the root of "erev" ― is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" ― "boker" ― is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement." ~Schroeder

 

What needs to be pointed out is that the Rabbis in these commentaries like Nachmanides and RASHI and the RAMBAM are adding the mystical kabalistic meaning to these words.   The Rabbis in using PARDES method of hermeneutics view the Scriptures as being layered with meanings.  The "meaning" of a text isn't what you read.  The meaning of the text is "mystical" and is only discovered by peeling back the many layers and this is done through kabalistic interpretation.   So what they consider "literal" means something totally different to the way that we mean literal.

 

He is applying the mystical rendering of Erev when he claims it means chaos.  It doesn't mean chaos.   It is never used to mean chaos.   In Jerusalem and in Jewish communities all over the world, Jewish people will wish someone "erev tov"   or "boker tov"    which mean "good evening" or "good morning."    "Erev" is never used in the sense it is used in Genesis 1 to mean "chaos"  in normal usage like what we see in Genesis 1.  Nor does boker mean, ":order."   That is the application of an irrelevant mystical, dare a I say, occultic approach to the text.  Kabbalah is occultic.

 

So This article, despite Spock's claims, is NOT the "other side."   Schroeder is not an Hebraist.  He is not a scholar of Hebrew.  He is a physicist at MIT.   So to present an article about time dilation as a refutation of a Hebrew scholar is rather laughable and doesn't really counter anything stated by Wang's article presented in the OP.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science"

 

What is the point then?

 

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time.

 

 

"The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof."

 

Agreed and it's usually those "sciences" that fall outside Empirical/Operational science

 

 

"But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions."

 

To establish TRUTH, right.  Then what do you use in support of that TRUTH to bring it above speculation....evidence?  Also your "Has Been" discovered denotes in the past or Unobserved phenomenon..... That means it's Forensic or Historical Science and not Empirical/Operational science.

 

"Very few things are actually "proven"

 

How about the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Biogenesis are they proven?  or are they just speculations or falsehoods?

 

"After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven"

 

Is 1 + 1 = 2  a Math Principle?  Is the previous math statement true?  Can we prove that to establish TRUTH?

 

 

OK, Enoch - I do not know what your body language actually is, but your post comes across as having a lot of angst, and I feel like responding something between, "Calm down," and "What is your point?"

 

In any event, I feel like walking back very slowly and just let you be.

 

 

"I do not know what your body language actually is"

 

I'm sitting @ my laptop in sweats typing listening to my kids run around the house playing....I guess you could characterize my body language as neutral.

 

"but your post comes across as having a lot of angst"

 

Well you must have mis-perceived it then.  You made generalized statements on your thoughts regarding science and proof which then led to specific questions to distill what EXACTLY you meant.  By my count, I asked roughly 7 questions for clarification.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

"Calm down"

 

What has led you to believe that I'm not calm?

 

"What is your point?"

 

Well my initial point was to show that equivocating Science and Technology is a fallacy and that the Goal of Empirical/Operational Science is to establish TRUTH systematically then provide evidence to support that TRUTH.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0