Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[Spock]

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

[Enoch2021]

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

[LookingForAnswers]

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.

[kwikphilly]

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

[Enoch2021]

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.

[LookingForAnswers]

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.

[nebula]

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.

[nebula]

"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.

[Enoch2021]

 

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?

[Enoch2021]

 

"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?