Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

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.

Actually only operational science is "testable."    Forensic science cannot replicate how a person died.   Operational science uses the scientific method to test a hypothesis to falsify it.  That is not possible in say, forensic science.   In Forensic science, you have to look at the evidence and piece together what you think happened based on the evidence available.   A criminal forensic expert can only guess at how a person died.  They cannot test to discover the exact way a person died.

 

Origins science is like forensic science.  You cannot replicate the origin of the universe so you have to look at the evidence you have.   Evolution for this reason, can never be emplrically proven.

 

 

In Forensic science you can test to falsify, which is what all science does.  They can test to discover how a person didnt die, which narrows down how they did die. 

 

In operational science, you observe a phenomenon, you create a hypothesis, you design an experiment to test the hypothesis, you make a prediction and you run the test several times and you analyze the data and you either accept, deny or modify the hypothesis and if necessary retest.  

 

Forensic science is nothing like that.   You cannot replicate the crime sciene or the accident scene whatever in a labratory setting.   So you have to basically go off of things lke toxicology report, time of death, the amount of blood the location and position of the body at the time of death,  observable physical injuiries and other conditions pertaining to the body.   You have to look around the room, question people who knew the victim and so on and so forth.   You look for evidence that might inform you of what happened.

 

You are talking about two completely different fields of science.

 

 

There is no such thing as operational science, that is a term made up by non-scientist.   Scientist do not break down science this way.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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.

 

Silly Games, eh?

 

Your technique is mostly equivocation after equivocation and I've called you on it a number of times.  An equivocation is a fallacy, another words....A FALSEHOOD.

 

"I am really not sure what you are getting at"

 

The difference between them is OBSERVATION or experience, Empirical Science is not dealing with the past. TRUTH/FACTS are derived from OBSERVATION and conducting REPEATABLE TESTABLE experiments. So when you postulate an idea you can then show support with Empirical EVIDENCE. 

 

You can't do repeatable experiments with "science" disciplines such as (Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology et al) because they're dealing with past events and you can't do Repeatable Experiments so it's not really science....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

When dealing with Forensic and Historical Sciences the only technique that can be used to arrive @ a conclusion is Mathematical Probability...it's not as reliable and doesn't carry the same veracity as OBSERVATION and Empirical/Operational Science via direct experimentation.

 

What was the point? ....

I'm providing a direct refutation of your statement concerning "People bashing science when they use the internet" fiasco.  So the question still stands....what does the study of fossils have to do with the internet or my cell phone use? 

 

Internet and cell phones are a result of Technology derived from EMPIRICAL/Operational Science.  The study of Fossils fall into Paleontology, a Classic Historic Science.

 

Is that clear now?

 

 

I would suggest you read a paper called The observational Approach to Cosmology by Edwin Hubble, he would disagree with your view, as do I.  It seems that people want to split science down the middle so they can have their cake and eat it too.  When science does something they agree with (i.e. medicine, the internet) then that is the "good" science and when they dont agree with it, then that is the "bad" science.

 

 

You can't be serious.....READ A PAPER?   IT'S SELF EVIDENT for goodness sakes 

[Guest shiloh357]

Please start a new thread on the various branches of sciences.  Thanks.

[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.

 

 

I would like to return the thread to the topic of my OP.    Please continue the discussion of the different branches of science in another thread.  Here is my previous response to Schroeder article which someone mistakenly thought was a rebuttal to a scholar of the Hebrew language.

[Enoch2021]

Please start a new thread on the various branches of sciences.  Thanks.

 

That was my last reply on the topic.  I was surprised it went past 2 posts

[Shar]

 

 

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.

 

 

I would like to return the thread to the topic of my OP.    Please continue the discussion of the different branches of science in another thread.  Here is my previous response to Schroeder article which someone mistakenly thought was a rebuttal to a scholar of the Hebrew language.

 

 

 

You make me laugh, Shiloh.  Thanks!  You question the Hebrew of a Jewish Ph.D who was raised Jewish and was raised on Hebrew from his childhood.  Reads, speaks and writes Hebrew weekly and especially during Shabbat and study of the Torah.  I would bet on a true one-on-one with him, he would win the Hebrew contest.

 

Also, the old sages you referenced were not all into Kabbalistic thought.  However, the Kabbalah of many centuries ago was not the occultic Kabbalah of today, (like Madonna practices).  It was a more spiritual focus, looking for more tangible, spiritual experiences, somewhat like our charismatic movements of today.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Shar

[Guest shiloh357]

You make me laugh, Shiloh.  Thanks!  You question the Hebrew of a Jewish Ph.D who was raised Jewish and was raised on Hebrew from his childhood.  Reads, speaks and writes Hebrew weekly and especially during Shabbat and study of the Torah.  I would bet on a true one-on-one with him, he would win the Hebrew contest.

 

I am not questioning his Hebrew.   I am challenging the fact that a kaballistic mystical rendering of Hebrew is being substituted for the textual rendering.   Evidently, you did nto read my post carefully.

 

Also, the old sages you referenced were not all into Kabbalistic thought. 

 

Oh yes they were.  Nachmanides, the RAMBAM and RASHI were all familiar with Kaballah and the Tefillin (phylacteries) that Jewish men wear for the shacharis are constructed according to Kabbalitic mysticism and the man who designed the structure of tefillin as we know them today was RASHI.

 

However, the Kabbalah of many centuries ago was not the occultic Kabbalah of today, (like Madonna practices).  It was a more spiritual focus, looking for more tangible, spiritual experiences, somewhat like our charismatic movements of today.

That is not true.   Kabbalah goes back to the first century AD and employs astronomy, promotes transmigraton of souls (reincarnation), the "tree of life/sephirot" (akin to the hindu chakras).   It is a very dangerous thing and is rooted in occultism.

 

The "kaballah" that Modonna is into is nothing more than New Age mysticism with a Jewish schtick.  

[Qnts2]

 

You make me laugh, Shiloh.  Thanks!  You question the Hebrew of a Jewish Ph.D who was raised Jewish and was raised on Hebrew from his childhood.  Reads, speaks and writes Hebrew weekly and especially during Shabbat and study of the Torah.  I would bet on a true one-on-one with him, he would win the Hebrew contest.

 

I am not questioning his Hebrew.   I am challenging the fact that a kaballistic mystical rendering of Hebrew is being substituted for the textual rendering.   Evidently, you did nto read my post carefully.

 

Also, the old sages you referenced were not all into Kabbalistic thought. 

 

Oh yes they were.  Nachmanides, the RAMBAM and RASHI were all familiar with Kaballah and the Tefillin (phylacteries) that Jewish men wear for the shacharis are constructed according to Kabbalitic mysticism and the man who designed the structure of tefillin as we know them today was RASHI.

 

However, the Kabbalah of many centuries ago was not the occultic Kabbalah of today, (like Madonna practices).  It was a more spiritual focus, looking for more tangible, spiritual experiences, somewhat like our charismatic movements of today.

That is not true.   Kabbalah goes back to the first century AD and employs astronomy, promotes transmigraton of souls (reincarnation), the "tree of life/sephirot" (akin to the hindu chakras).   It is a very dangerous thing and is rooted in occultism.

 

The "kaballah" that Modonna is into is nothing more than New Age mysticism with a Jewish schtick.  

 

 

I agree with Shiloh, any 'Hebrew expert' can be challenged when their interpretation is based on not just the literal meaning, but stepping into a mystical interpretation. That is what is happening in this article and it is based on rather silly extensions used in mystical Judaism.  

 

When I read the Kabbalah, it read more like a combination of Judaism and eastern religions. It is based on a false premise of God (Ein Sof) and extrapolates from there.    

[Shar]

You cannot take a quote Dr. Schroeder used from someone else who may have practiced a considerably different form of Kabbalah and make it to what we understand about Kabbalah today, which is definitely occultic.  Back centuries ago it did not take this form.  Besides they are referencing certain points of Hebrew to support a point that was made.  The point is not these older sages but the truth of starlight and time.  The science behind the Bible.  G-d is the greatest scientist.  He was the one who put into effect the laws of the universe - starlight, time, speed of light, thermodyanmics, gravity, speed of sound, etc.  He does not even compromise His own laws.  When we read more about the science of starlight and time we can see that the six day 24-hour creation and the billions of years of age to the universe can both be true.  This is the essence of Hebrew block logic. You do not need to mentally check out of science to believe the Bible.  Science actually proves the Bible and thereby proves the existence of G-d.  Science is all through the Bible.

 

The Hubble telescope and space probes have actually given us a true glimpse of how stars, planets, asteroids, etc. are actually being created and died.  G-d is always creating.  The laws He set into effect are still at work to this very day.  Baruch HaShem!

[Guest shiloh357]

You cannot take a quote Dr. Schroeder used from someone else who may have practiced a considerably different form of Kabbalah and make it to what we understand about Kabbalah today, which is definitely occultic.  Back centuries ago it did not take this form.

 

You are wrong. The Kaballah was always occultic.  

 

Besides they are referencing certain points of Hebrew to support a point that was made. 

 

They are referencing Hebrew from a mystical and not a textual perspective  They are adding mystical interpretations and presenting this mystical meaning as if it is the meaning of the text.

 

When we read more about the science of starlight and time we can see that the six day 24-hour creation and the billions of years of age to the universe can both be true.  This is the essence of Hebrew block logic.

 

That is not the essence of Herew block logic at all  If God were trying to fit 15 billion years into six days, He would have said so, but He didn't.