...I was thinking:
4.6 billion years ago. Within a maze of galaxy clusters which looked like a night view of midtown Manhattan from an airplane, within the outer arm of an obscure galaxy that is now known as the Milky Way a nascent star was forming. G-d was very pleased. For the entire process of stellar development in the universe was for the purpose of this one star. "O luckiest of stars!", said he, "All that which I have formed before you are for your own sake, for a planet to circle thee is to be the first and last home of intelligent life".
The present. Halfway through it's life, in it's very prime of accomplishment, this star has finally realized it's goal. Intelligent life. Capable of realizing the benefits and cycles of it's star, and capable of giving thanks to it's creator. For without this star, human life could not have developed. Surely everything that exists in our planet we owe to this never-tiring ball of light, energy and happiness. And yet, in a way, it should perhaps be more grateful to us than us to it, for there are many stars, but we are the ones who give this one it's purpose.
Today we bless G-d for this star, yet what blessing does it recite upon us? Our very existence, one must say, is blessing enough for the sun.
One billion years from now. Our star will amass too much energy to sustain any life on it's planets. Yet it will die happy, knowing that it's grand purpose has been fulfilled.
35 comments:
"4.6 billion years ago"?
"one billion years from now"?
Yeah. What? Have you got different calculations or something?!
(Just playin' wit' you man : ), I suppose you're suggesting that those numbers are obviously far too high for the fundamentalist opinions. I'm (obviously) no proponent of the "the earth is thousands of years old opinion". I've never written about that on the blof though because I don't consider it quite important enough, though I did have a post about evolution and sefer haikarim that I never ended up putting up. Maybe I'll write it up after all..)
Shlomo, I didn't get it, do you mean you are no proponent that the earth is thousands of years old, because you believe that it is billions of years old, or did you mean you are no proponent that the earth is thousands of years old, because it is less that six thousand years old?
Haha. Obviously the former, man. (I mean, like, if the world was created 3,100 "BC" that would put it smack in the middle of one of those Egyptian dynasties! But seriously, first of all there's obviously very little הכרח to say that the first days of Breshit were 24 days because 1. there was no sun, and 2. the Torah is not concerned with dogmatics (as the Christians later were)(/it seems to be a "Hebrew version" of stories like the Enuma Elish etc., and has little bearing on actual past history).
But more importantly, it's clear the Torah uses a lot of borrowed language; "ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים" for example (in Shemot)- I mean, they (בני ישראל) walked! The Torah never meant to suggest anything else.
Again, literalism to an unusual degree and turning that into a forced dogma is a Christian invention, which Ashkenazim inherited in there time in Europe, and faultily wish to spread to all Jews although it is not "normative" Judaism (especially not to the fathers of Jewish philosophy as the Rambam and Y. Halevy).
I guess you already see where I'm going with this..
"24 days"- *ahem*; "24 hour days".
There definitely is a hechrech, because generally dibra Torah beloshon bnei adam
..you serious man? "דיברה תורה בלשון בני אדם" is generally more of a halachic/talmudic concept. As far as the Tanach goes we see the opposite: "בנטותי את ידי על מצריים", "עיני ה", etc. You know..
If you haven't read the main parts of the More' (מורה נבוכים) you should, it's important (and basic) stuff.
Yes I am totally serious, the Lubavitcher Rebbe uses this as a reason why you can't just decide the Torah means to say 4.6 billion years when it says 7 days.
When the Torah says eyney Hashem:
1. We have mesorah in Torah She Baal Peh, that it does not mean literal eyes.
2. Instead of saying Hashem's concentration which is also equally unapplicable to G-d, it says Hashem's eyes in order to have it make sense to us. Again this is dibrah Torah beloshon bnei Adam.
Furthermore, you are still not addressing how you can say "one billion years from now"?? All agree that the world will not pass the year 6,000.
"..the Lubavitcher Rebbe uses this as a reason"- That's not very significant to me, though I suppose I might consider it more seriously if I saw/heard it in context.
"Instead of saying Hashem's concentration which is also equally unapplicable to G-d, it says Hashem's eyes in order to have it make sense to us."- Man, if this isn't a circle than I'm blind! (i.e. we're going in circles). That's what I'm saying man; G-d doesn't have eyes and we weren't taken out of Egypt on "wings of eagles". It's metaphoric as are the "days" (the Ramban mentioned something along these lines about "days" during his forced disputations with the church).
"All agree that the world will not pass the year 6,000."- "All" agree?! I'm not even sure what that means. As far as I'm concerned, Derech Hashem (Ramchal) is a reasonable representation of the Talmudic/kabalistic opinion. Basically the "official" story says mashiach will come by 6000, then there'll be a thousand years of nothingness, then t'chiat hametim where people will seemingly be living in peace for a while until G-d decides it's time for people to be in spiritual form (thus suggesting the world will at some time, cease to exist, as is suggested in "adon olam").
So I don't see that the world'll be destroyed 6000, but either way that whole episode is VERY open to interpretation.
As far as I'm concerned this isn't a very new argument. Like I said, there are more "Rambam-like" views on it, and more "Lubavicher Rebbe-like" outlooks. They've been at odds for a while..
1. I can't find that letter now, when I do, I'll post it here.
2. Like I said earlier- whenever the Torah She Bichtav is being non-literal, the Torah She Baal Peh tells us. "Eyney Hashem", "Kanfey Nesharim", etc are all explained in Torah She Baal Peh. We have NO mesorah that 7 days means 7 billion years.
2. If the world were to be billions of years old, all gittin would be pasul because of an incorrect date.
3. The Rambam's true approach to Torah is not that which he states in Moreh Nevuchim:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112235/jewish/Apologetics.htm#footnote5a112235
4. Even if you would try to G-d forbid add another couple of thousand years, its not gonna take a billion years for Moshiach to come.
I responded in a new post, feel free to comment there (..or here).
Heehee! Hey Dovid! Go study.
Whoah, thanks for getting my back Rachel! (I thought if anything you would side with him!)
Huh? I didn't even read the comments, sorry.
hmm, ok, so you probably still would side with him (oh well)..
ya, probably.
how'd i get placed under brooklyn girls? not that it matters...
Haha. Nice of you to notice! Well, as you can guess, I felt the previous format to be somewhat arbitrary; I mean, I didn't really have much more to do with those blogs which were in a special group as those outside of it.
..in regards to placing you in Brooklyn girls; the majority is from Brooklyn, and the theology you espoused was synonymous with that of Brooklyn girls anyway..
..you should just be happy I didn't put you under "Chabad"!
yichs.
Shlomo- Whatever
Rachel- Whatever
Dovid: fine. psha.
Yaay! I win!
Rachel: "Psha"? Isn't that some gooey food Ashhkenazim eat or something?
I think you would have a tough time even convincing yourself of that. (I mean the first comment not the psha comment)
Are you kidding man? You're creationist ideas are totally bogus, I don't think the Lubavicher Rebbe himself would beleive that stuff!
I know you probably don't have tons of time on your hands, but if you're interested, check out this book- its free for you to read online:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111581/jewish/Mind-Over-Matter.htm
I read it while I was attending college and I found the Rebbe's views on the matter to be very surprising, maybe you would too.
My views are not bogus- you don't even know my views to call them bogus.
Oh and btw, I assume your views are also "creationist" are they not? The difference is just that you say He made a nascent universe 4.6 billion years ago while I say He made a mature universe 5,769 years ago.
What chapters of that book would you say are most applicaple to the discussion we had?
(I agree the Lubavicher Rebbe had some interesting ideas (no doubt partially due to his "dual" education (i.e. secular and religious). ..I used to read some of his letters when I was sleeping in a Chabad ezrat nashim...)
"you don't even know my views to call them bogus"- I didn't say your "views", I said the idea that the universe didn't exist less than six thousand years ago..
"Oh and btw, I assume your views are also "creationist" are they not?"- Yes, well, I suppose "creationist" isn't quite the right word, since I obviously beleive in the universe having been put into existance by "The First Cause" ("creationist" is usually used in an evolutionary context, something I also "beleive in", so..another reason why it's not a good word).
Mostly in the chapter entitled "theories of evolution".
Look this is the way I see it- once one believes in "creationism", to say that Hashem created individual molecules/atoms a billion years ago which eventually formed grains, which eventually formed hills, which eventually formed mountains etc, is no more logical or likely than saying that Hashem formed mountains lechatchilah.
Yeah, theologically I don't think there's much of a difference. This is something I haven't yet mentioned, but feel more strongly about in regards to evolution (though I did reveal similar sentiments previously): Evolution, the way it's currently described as having taken place in the scientific world, may or may not have occured, but that has little relevance to weather or not the Torah was "written by G-d" or not, and does not affect ones religious beleifs either way. ..some thing with "age of the universe" issues.
..though I'll make sure to check out that chapter..
"some thing" = "same" thing
I wasn't saying theologically there is no difference, I was saying scientifically/logically there is no difference-
Once you say there is a Creator, scientifically there is no difference between saying He created molecules 4.6 billion years ago or He created mountains, trees, animals, humans, etc 5,769 years ago.
Post a Comment