12 Sep 06
Originally posted by xpoferensThanks for the citation. I read it. A couple of points:
Hi vistesd,
I've found some information in the following site. Would you be so kind to read it?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp
Do they have a creationist young-earth agenda?
Well, if we have an opinion or if we are sure about something, then, if the subject is relevant, we should try to pass the message. That's what they're trying to do.
In that sense, we all have agendas, don't we?
Regards
(1) I have to look for some more about Ibn Ezra. (Okay—that wasn’t really a “point.” )
(2) In Judaism, there is no one voice (such as Ibn Ezra) that holds sway on such issues. Jews (even Orthodox) are free to dispute the cosmological views of earlier (or present) sages, and move on—this was true in Ibn Ezra’s day as well. Talmudic Judaism is based on hermeneutical “argument”—you say this, I say that. The idea is to uncover as many possible meanings as possible in the Torah, bringing ourselves to the study as well. The Talmuds are records of rabbinical arguments, not fiat statements of doctrine.
It’s difficult, coming from a Christian background (as I do) to get a handle on Judaistic hermeneutics. As I hope The Ouaknin quotes pointed out, it is far different from conventional Christian hermeneutics, in that the quest is not for any “one right meaning.”
(3) I’m not sure it’s so much that earlier rabbis read the Torah and upheld it against natural science (or pagan views of the cosmos, as Griffiths says), but that they didn’t question their understanding of natural science when they were reading the scriptures. (Note that Ibn Ezra was a 12th century sage; he didn’t have another cosmology.)
(4) I’m not sure that “heavenly sphere” meant what Griffiths thinks it does. The earth’s rotation takes approximately 24 hours—I’m not sure how long it takes the “heavenly sphere.”
(5) It’s interesting that Griffiths uses Jewish sources only insofar as they agree with what he wants to demonstrate, and otherwise attempts to deconstruct their arguments (his paragraphs 9, 10 and 11).
(6) Now, I’m going to get one of my pet peeves in—
yom does not mean “day.” Yom can mean day, a number of days, year, a period of time. The reason it’s a pet peeve is that people keep taking a word in another language, translating it into a single-word “equivalent” in English—and the saying that’s what it means. yom means yom. When the rabbis (including Ibn Ezra) read yom, they do not translate it as “day,” but see all the possible meanings. Griffiths did not cite any rabbinical source that yom referred to a “24-hour day”—he simply said he couldn’t find any contrary definition. But that is likely because he was taking yom, to mean “day” to begin with—i.e., he made a translation that a native Hebrew speaker would not make.
Well, my friend, you’ve sent me to my bookshelf! Good! I do not own the complete Talmud—it is several volumes, and I own only one tractate in Hebrew-English. I do have a collection of Talmudic sayings. So, I’ll do a little research...
BTW, one should not project Christian understandings of “messiah” back onto Judaism either. It’s like somebody trying to overlay the rules of chess onto a game of gin. Jewish concepts of messiah are multivariate. (For example, in Isaiah 45:1, he refers to King Cyrus as mashiach—YHVH’s anointed.)
____________________________
Re agendas: Yes, I’m sure we all have them. My agenda here might be summed up simply in the words: “Whenever you read these texts, you assume a hermeneutical risk.” There is no way to read without interpretation. What I like about the Jewish approach (again, based on the requirements of the Hebrew) is that it says, “So go ahead, interpret.” From the Jewish “midrashic” point of view, that is what we are supposed to do—even ourselves finding different meanings each time we approach the text.
Now, off to some more research for my argument... 🙂
_______________________________
Okay, here’s an old thread that may give an idea of the Jewish midrashic approach—along with some discussion and commentary from FreakyKBH (Protestant) and lucifershammer (Roman Catholic):
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=38147&page=1
12 Sep 06
2 edits
ADDENDUM to my last post—
Note that yom in Genesis 1:5 is used twice: Once just to mean a period of daylight—or, more precisely, light itself : “And called elohim to-light (l’or), yom.” That is surely a figurative statement. The second time, it says: “And there was evening and there was morning, one yom.” This is highly and beautifully poetic, and can refer to the first cycle of existence being one in which the very cycle of time begins. (Again, I do not take this as a refutation of scientific theories—simply a poetic rendering.) It is fundamentally about rhythms and cycles in time. It isn’t science or a logical proposition—it’s poetry. And is intended to be read as such.
BTW, midrashic exegesis could get a lot of imaginative mileage out of the poetic rendering of or and yom being treated synonymously...
_______________________________
I can’t resist reposting this, again just to give you some flavor:
One Shabbos afternoon, Reb Reuven called me into is study. He was sitting behind his desk and motioned me to take the chair across from him. A volume of the Zohar was lying open in front of him.
“Do you know what the Zohar is?” he asked.
“Of course,” I said. “It is a mystical commentary on Torah written by Moshe deLeon, a thirteenth century Spanish kabbalist who....”
“Nonsense!” he yelled at me, half rising out of his chair. “The Zohar isn’t just a commentary; it’s a Torah all by itself. It is a new Torah, a new telling of the last Torah. You do know what Torah is, don’t you?”
Suspecting that I didn’t, and afraid to invoke his wrath a second time, I waited silently, certain that he would answer his own question. I was not disappointed.
“Torah is story. God is story. Israel is story. You, my university-educated soon-to-be a liberal pain in the ass rabbi, are a story. We are all stories! We are all Torahs!...Listen, Rami,” Reuven said in a softer voice. “Torah starts with the word b’reisheet,* ‘Once upon a time!’”
—Rabbi Rami Shapiro, Hasidic Tales
* Conventionally translated “in the beginning” or “with beginning.”
________________________________
I think we do well to remember that “once upon a time” when we read the stories in the Hebrew scriptures.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdHi vistesd, thanks for the post(s).
ADDENDUM to my last post—
Note that yom in Genesis 1:5 is used twice: Once just to mean a period of daylight—or, more precisely, light itself : “And called elohim to-light (l’or), yom.” That is surely a figurative statement. The second time, it says: “And there was evening and there was morning, one yom.” This is hig ...[text shortened]... e do well to remember that “once upon a time” when we read the stories in the Hebrew scriptures.
Note: In my previous post I forgot to mention I didn't endorse everything Griffiths said.
When I discuss this subject, I confess I do it only from the Biblical standpoint; I regard the Bible as the inspired word of God and see the need for nothing else.
II Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
I know nothing or little about extra Biblical ancient Jewish writings, from which standpoint it seems you usually aproach these subjects.
(?) Perhaps Jesus was condemning this kind of writings or oral traditions when He said:
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”—’then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men’ ” (Matthew 15:3-9).
I'll have to read more about these writings, after all, there is always a place for scholarly examination.
When in a previous post I said that Judaism (and Christianity) used to endorse the Genesis record as literal, I was pointing to the Israelites (and Jews) who wrote the Bible, not to these rabbinical writings.
I reckon now that when one uses the word "Judaism", one is not necessarily referring to the canon. Well, it is never too late to learn. 🙂
Regarding the word yom, I agree with you; yom can mean day, a number of days, year, a period of time, an era...
For the sake of speed (and my lesser knowledge too), please allow me to quote something regarding this word. Naturally, it is based exclusively in the Bible.
Quote
First, whenever the Hebrew word for day (yom) is preceded by a numeral (in non-prophetic passages like Genesis 1), it always carries the meaning of a 24-hour day. The same occurs in the plural (cf. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17).
Second, yom is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. The words “evening” and “morning” are used together in the Old Testament with the word yom over 100 times in non-prophetic passages, and each time they refer to a 24-hour day. Furthermore, if the “days” of Genesis 1:14, were “eons of time,” then what were the years? And, if a “day” is an “age,” then what is a “night”?
Third, if the “days” of Genesis were not days at all, but long geological periods, then a problem of no little consequence arises in the field of botany. Plants came into existence on the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). If the days of Genesis 1 were long geological ages, how did plant life survive millions of years of total darkness? Also, how would the plants that depend on insects for pollination have survived the supposed millions or billions of years between “day” three and “day” five (when insects were created).
Fourth, while Jesus was on the Earth He taught that man and woman had been here from “the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6; cf. Matthew 19:4). Paul affirmed this same sentiment in Romans 1:20-21, where he stated that man and women have been here “from the beginning of the creation” when they were “perceiving the things that were made.” The Day-Age Theory, on the other hand, places man at the end of billions of years of geologic time. Both cannot be true.
Finally, one must ask, if God wanted us to know that He created the world in six literal days, what words would He have used? Or if a person wanted to explain to someone else that God created all things in a literal six days, what words would he use? The answer?—the exact words used in Genesis 1.
You can trust your Bible when it says, “For in six days [not six billion years—EL] the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).
End of quote
I'll go on studying, and I'll have a look at the thread you mentioned.
Thanks.
Take care.
12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by xpoferensFirst, I was really arguing a bit with Griffiths, and not with you—sorry for the confusion.
Hi vistesd, thanks for the post(s).
Note: In my previous post I forgot to mention I didn't endorse everything Griffiths said.
When I discuss this subject, I confess I do it only from the Biblical standpoint; I regard the Bible as the inspired word of God and see the need for nothing else.
II Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture [is] given by inspiratio on studying, and I'll have a look at the thread you mentioned.
Thanks.
Take care.
Second, I don’t think the question here is whether or not the writings were “inspired” (though it might be a question of what that means), so much as how they are to be read. The passages that you are reading as an accurate record of creation (I’m trying to avoid the word “literally” here), I am reading as poetry and metaphor. I am not saying that it can’t be read the way you are (in Hebrew exegesis, that would be called p’shat: the “plain” reading).
Again, I am taking “evening and morning” and yom metaphorically. In one sense, one way of reading it is as valid as another. And I think that the idea of a “literal” reading being primary is a “modern” development—and not only with regard to biblical texts, but with a lot of ancient “mythic” tales. Somehow we’ve gotten this notion that if something can’t be read as historical fact, then there can’t be any true message in it—the ancients did not think this way. In any event, rabbinical Judaism—from somewhat before the time of Christ at any rate—has opted for looking at all the possible meanings, rather than some single “right” meaning. I also think that the early church “Fathers” did the same—or at least something similar, reading the texts, of course, through a Christic lens.
This goes to what I said about “hermeneutical risk.” There is no way to read the texts without applying some hermeneutical rules or guidelines. I take a very broad view on this. And we are likely simply at impasse on this question.
Now, you will also notice that I do not refer to the “Bible” as if it is a single book, to be read as such. It is a collection of diverse writings. I also have concerns about calling it “the word of God.” Frankly, and I don’t mean this to be offensive, but I don’t know how else to say it—I think that runs the risk of moving toward a biblical idolatry: an idolatry of the “graven word,” if you will. In the NT, the phrase logos tou theou (“logos of God”—and I leave the word logos untranslated here because it means more than “word”*) has three referents:
(1) writings from the Hebrew scriptures (the Greek word graphe, generally translated as “scripture, simply means “writing”
(2) the teachings of Jesus and his followers; and
(3) in the opening of the Gospel of John, the Christ (ho Christos) as the logos incarnate in human form.
There was no Bible, there was no “book,” and there is no indication that the NT writers thought they were writing “holy scripture.” And, in any event, "word (logos) of God" does not mean the same thing as the "words (rema) of God."
* It is worth noting that in Chinese translations of the NT, logos is rendered as “Tao,” which means “way,” or the way things are manifest. logos can mean principle, or reason, or meaning, or pattern, etc., etc. The Greek word that simply means written or spoken words is rema.
___________________________
What this all means from a religious point-of-view is “more risk, more faith.” A faith that is not defensive against scholarship and wide-ranging study (in any discipline), or a plethora of possible interpretations of the texts. A faith that does not require certainty of understanding, or that insists on being pegged to one understanding or theological system. pistis, the Greek word, does not mean “belief” as in what you think (neither did the English word “belief” mean what-you-think originally; it’s meaning has changed over time)—it means trust. It is an existential trust, even in the face of a universe that does not disclose “meaning” to you, so that you have to both search out and even create your own meaning. It is a trust that does not remove doubt, or questions, or inquiry—or put a closure on the quest for knowledge, wherever it takes you: it is a trust that simply removes all existential fear.
It is a trust that cannot be misplaced, except as you put it in transient things expecting them not to change. If that all sounds vague and “mysterious”—well, it’s the best I can do. If I said that I placed such a trust in “God,” then someone could begin questioning what my concept of “God” was—and it’s not a trust based on any concept; it does not require the correct words, nor confirmation from anyone. You could call it a “radical trust,” as an existential stance toward life—and death. Whence it comes, I don’t know; you can call it “grace” if you wish. I think it is of fundamental concern in the Christic message, but it is not confined to Christianity or the religions of “supernatural theism.”
I must be really tired to wax so philosophical at this hour... 😛 Goodnight, and be well.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by xpoferensI am always breathless when selective uses of science are used to support a literal reading of
Third, if the “days” of Genesis were not days at all, but long geological periods, then a problem of no little consequence arises in the field of botany. Plants came into existence on the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). If the days of Genesis 1 were long geological ages, how did plant life survive millions of years of total darkness? Also, how would the plants ...[text shortened]... ed millions or billions of years between “day” three and “day” five (when insects were created).
the first creation story. That is, one can accept that God can allow people to walk in furnaces
or fly up into the air on a fiery chariot, but plants can't live a million years in darkness.
I mean, if you are going to tacitly accept Biblical miracles, then I think God can magically
pollinate plants without insects to help Him.
If you are are going to embrace science, then embrace all of it, not just the parts that
make your arguments sound like they make sense.
Nemesio
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioCatch your breath Nemesio,
I am always breathless when selective uses of science are used to support a literal reading of
the first creation story. That is, one can accept that God can allow people to walk in furnaces
or fly up into the air on a fiery chariot, but plants can't live a million years in darkness.
I mean, if you are going to tacitly accept Biblical miracles, then I ...[text shortened]... all of it, not just the parts that
make your arguments sound like they make sense.
Nemesio
If the Bible said the days in Genesis lasted for a million years, then I would have no problem agreeing God had sustained plants for a million years in darkness.
Yes, God could pollinate plants without insects to help Him (for a zillion years).
The problem Nemesio, is that the bible says the world was created in 6 days.
Exodus 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by xpoferensI forgot to address one point of your last post with the quote, and Nemesio’s post triggered my thought.
Catch your breath Nemesio,
If the Bible said the days in Genesis lasted for a million years, then I would have no problem agreeing God had sustained plants for a million years in darkness.
Yes, God could pollinate plants without insects to help Him (for a zillion years).
The problem Nemesio, is that the bible says the world was created in 6 days. ...[text shortened]... m [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If the biblical writers wrote that the sun revolved around the earth so that God could give the command, and “The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day,” then either they were writing metaphorically—or they were wrong in thinking that’s how the cosmos works.
If the geological record, for example, shows that the earth is substantially more than 6,000 years old and became as it is today over long eons of change, then either the writer(s) of Genesis were writing mythically and metaphorically—or they were wrong about how the cosmos works.
It’s quite possible that it’s some of both. I allow for things in the biblical writings to be wrong—both in terms of science and history. I also allow for mythology, and just plain stories. I also allow for many “theological” interpretations.
I also allow for my readings to be wrong. I look for many possible interpretations. I bring myself to the text—and either it speaks to me in a way that makes sense, or moves me (like, again, poetry—or a symphony), or it does not. I don’t worry about it.
With regard to the quote from Matthew, it does not set “the Bible” against the “traditions of men;” it sets that moral command against a specific practice (“tradition” ) that violated it. Do you really think Jesus thought that anyone who curses their mother or father ought to be put to death? Reading the Bible literally, or as a book with a single divine author, I would argue is also precisely a “tradition of men.” So are other ways of reading it—so it’s one tradition versus another...
Now I really must to bed.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdIt has been a pleasant discussion.
I forgot to address one point of your last post with the quote, and Nemesio’s post triggered my thought.
If the biblical writers wrote that the sun revolved around the earth so that God could give the command, and “The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day,” then either they were writing metaphorically—or they were wrong ...[text shortened]... e other ways of reading it—so it’s one tradition versus another...
Now I really must to bed.
I'll be back later.
Take care
12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdIf the biblical writers wrote that the sun revolved around the earth so that God could give the command, and “The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day,” then either they were writing metaphorically—or they were wrong in thinking that’s how the cosmos works.
I forgot to address one point of your last post with the quote, and Nemesio’s post triggered my thought.
If the biblical writers wrote that the sun revolved around the earth so that God could give the command, and “The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day,” then either they were writing metaphorically—or they were wrong ...[text shortened]... e other ways of reading it—so it’s one tradition versus another...
Now I really must to bed.
Or, third option: they were thinking in the venacular of the day (and ours too, for that matter), and in describing the 'sun stopping in mid-heaven,' they were witness to the supernatural phenomenon of a globe's rotation temporarily suspended. Sure, to us that would be earth-stopping, but it's not likely it was anything less to them!
If the geological record, for example, shows that the earth is substantially more than 6,000 years old and became as it is today over long eons of change, then either the writer(s) of Genesis were writing mythically and metaphorically—or they were wrong about how the cosmos works.
Or, another option:
Neither our reading of the geological record OR the Bible is correct. Reading the geological record for dating purposes is speculative at best. The Bible does not give an age of the earth, even from its recreation. Therefore, to superimpose on the geological record something it cannot say, or to superimpose on the biblical account something it does not say is unprofitable for anyone.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOr, third option:
[b]If the biblical writers wrote that the sun revolved around the earth so that God could give the command, and “The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day,” then either they were writing metaphorically—or they were wrong in thinking that’s how the cosmos works.
Or, third option: they were thinking in the venacular of ...[text shortened]... to superimpose on the biblical account something it does not say is unprofitable for anyone.[/b]
Wish I would’ve thought of “vernacular!” That’s more what I was trying to say than what I said. Whether story or event, that way of speaking was likely already part of the vernacular, and would not likely have been a new metaphor.
Or, another option:
“Speculative at best” seems a bit strong to me—but I’ll let the scientists argue that (I’m not into a conspiracy theory re the scientific community); if the consensus among the scientific community is that the various dating methods are valid within a relatively (given the scale) narrow range, I’ll accept that. But I’ll let scottishinnz and others argue that, and learn as I listen...
With that aside, your point is well-taken.
__________________________
Xpo had a point about agendas—and I really do have one that goes beyond what I suggested to him about “hermeneutical risk,” though it’s part of it. I’m not trying to keep it hidden, but it’s still percolating in my brain, and I’m feeling may way as I argue here, in hopes that I can get enough clarity (as I dribble out half-formed pieces of it to test in the game) to express it without confusion. It has to do with “idolatry” (and I have broached the word, without myself having come to a clear definition), but I’m going to go as slowly and carefully as I can—which means not rushing ahead on here while I think about it and do some study (including in response to some of the comments on here that my “dribbles” may arouse, and which I may be awhile in replying to). Basically using the argumentative mode to test my thinking as I go... I really do hope people realize how much arguing here is just that (not all of it, of course!).
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesd“vernacular!”
[b]Or, third option:
Wish I would’ve thought of “vernacular!” That’s more what I was trying to say than what I said. Whether story or event, that way of speaking was likely already part of the vernacular, and would not likely have been a new metaphor.
Or, another option:
“Speculative at best” seems a bit strong to me—but I’ll let the sc ...[text shortened]... I really do hope people realize how much arguing here is just that (not all of it, of course!).[/b]
D-oh! Mr. Spellcheck must have been a wee tired!
“Speculative at best” seems a bit strong to me...
I'm merely referring to the panorama of progressive knowledge that has defined scientific understanding. Just in the past half century or so, we've seen the age of the universe doubled, in addition to other 'small' alterations with respect to measurable stuff.
__________________________
It has to do with “idolatry”
With respect to your thoughts thus far on the subject, I couldn't agree more. Christians run the risk of the very grave danger of substitutionary worship when we disallow the text to speak for itself. I have had more than a few pauses in my walk thus far when confronted by rigidity--- both on the part of others and myself--- concerning the Bible's role in history.
While on one side, the Bible tells us that God has elevated His word above His own Name, surely this does not speak of that which we call the written word of God, i.e., the ink and the markings. Rather, just as our bodies are vessels for the soul, it is not the body which is pivotal but the soul. In the same way (IMO), the ink and the markings are the vessels.
It is that same dilemma of determining how much is phenomena and how much is my observation. Thus, humility is more critical than any other contribution.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is that same dilemma of determining how much is phenomena and how much is my observation.
[b]“vernacular!”
D-oh! Mr. Spellcheck must have been a wee tired!
“Speculative at best” seems a bit strong to me...
I'm merely referring to the panorama of progressive knowledge that has defined scientific understanding. Just in the past half century or so, we've seen the age of the universe doubled, in addition to other 'small' alterati ...[text shortened]... how much is my observation. Thus, humility is more critical than any other contribution.[/b]
Inescapable. Once again we’re closer than I would’ve thunk—although I would’ve thunk we were closer than some others might have thunk we would be... 🙂
Spell check: What I really hate is when—
(1) I remember to spell check;
(2) I post;
(3) I go back and discover that a word, although correctly spelled in itself, was actually a misspelling of the word I intended to type—so that the sentence makes no sense; and
(4) It’s too late to edit...
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesd(3) I go back and discover that a word, although correctly spelled in itself, was actually a misspelling of the word I intended to type—so that the sentence makes no sense; and
It is that same dilemma of determining how much is phenomena and how much is my observation.
Inescapable. Once again we’re closer than I would’ve thunk—although I would’ve thunk we were closer than some others might have thunk we would be... 🙂
Spell check: What I really hate is when—
(1) I remember to spell check;
(2) I post;
(3) I go ...[text shortened]... rd I intended to type—so that the sentence makes no sense; and
(4) It’s too late to edit...[/b]
(4) It’s too late to edit...
That's when you get to play it off like you've reached a higher level of mystic insight than achieved by the unwashed around you.