Jump to content
IGNORED

Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

@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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

 

 

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

 

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

@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.

 

 

"Yes, they are two different things"

 

Good, we established Truth.

 

"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."

 

More precisely, however; "And MRI is technology derived from Empirical/Operational science. Without the Empirical/Operational Science behind magnetism and electricity......"

 

Are there any differences or a Massive Difference between Empirical/Operational Science and say:    A. Forensic Science  B.  Historical Science?

 

In other words, so we don't equivocate or get confused between them..... what is the one distinguishable characteristic that Empirical/Operational Science has that the other 2 don't have or which the other 2 can't claim as a tenet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

E2021,

You are creating a false distinctions between types of science.  All science, to use the definition that you gave...is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

E2021,

You are creating a false distinctions between types of science.  All science, to use the definition that you gave...is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. 

 

"Empirical /Operational Science : Relying on or derived from observation or experiment". Free Dictionary

 

"Forensic Science: is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past." Wiki

 

"Historical Science: The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events." Free Dictionary

 

Again:  Are there any differences or a Massive Difference between Empirical/Operational Science and say:    A. Forensic Science  B.  Historical Science?

 

In other words, so we don't equivocate or get confused between them..... what is the one distinguishable characteristic that Empirical/Operational Science has that the other 2 don't have or which the other 2 can't claim as a tenet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Each of those branches you listed are a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.  I am really not sure what you are getting at.  If you find some massive difference then spell it out and quit playing these silly games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

"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.

 

 

By body language, I meant tone of voice and facial expression.

 

The kinds of questions you asked came across more like attack questions than inquiry questions.

 

Yes, perhaps I did mis-perceived, which is why I expressed how I felt about what you said rather than responding in a way that aligned with my misconception.

 

 

OK, technology requires science (usually some form of physics), and quite often the two are tied together - i.e. in news feeds you will find the category "science and technology". But technically, yes, they are different things (else the category would be scitech or something weird like that).

 

Truth - well, "truth" isn't exactly in science vocabulary,  unless people are intermixing philosophy or theology into their science - which actually happens quite a lot. Most of science should be presented as: "The evidence indicates...," not "This is how it is...."

 

A great example of that would be nutrition science. First they say, "This is good for you," then they say, "This is bad for you," then they say, "This is good for you in moderation." (You know what I mean.) What they should say is, "Our latest studies indicate ....."

 

Now granted, we have physics principles that are more well-grounded than the revolving door of nutrition, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

As far as the history of the universe goes, though, you have to know the material between what is fact (the observed evidence) and what is interpretation of the fact. And that can get complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...