Your takeaway from Benthams post is that he has Rabbi potential? 😂
Would that all rabbis were like him in their comprehension of these issues. Also there's no need to be a literalist of the Torah. There are plenty of textual problems when you're trying to take a literalist view and thinking of the world's creation that way.
Perhaps I should have explained this more, But I think the simple translation is perfectly consistent with an old looking Earth. Hence Adam being created an adult.
Maybe the rocks are from far away in the universe but the actual togetherness of everything and the life forces etc., are young. Like meteors caught in centrifugal forces.
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you not understand my question? Do you not understand what the word create means in this context? You are claiming that god created the world looking old. In the same sense that you understand create in that context, respond to my question regarding all the evidence of human activity and civilization prior to 5785.
I didn’t say it was. I’m posing a simple question. You’re trying to account for the claims of Young Eartb creationism being absurd. I’m simply pointing out a factor that you didn’t address.
I'm really not sure what you're gesturing at here. I've heard "Six days for God might be a billion years for us" before, and of course many theists believe that evolution happened but under God's direction, reconciling Darwin and religion that way. But none of this explains Young Earth creationism as true. The only solution I see is what Bentham suggests: a world that is less than 6000 years old but in which literally all available physical evidence says it's vastly older is one in which God has deliberately created an elaborate model universe just to fool us.
So what are the other options? Wny would God create a young universe indistinguishable from an ancient one, and then just expect us to believe what's written in a book and not our lying eyes?
I tried to tag you in my note, but may be I should just respond here
1. Check out my recent book review: Book Review: On the Origin of Time.
2. By framing it as a strict binary, you're essentially asking: If Adam had a belly button, does that mean God created him with false evidence of a mother—just to fool us?
As I wrote, religious people don’t believe in God because there’s evidence for a young Earth—there isn’t. The real question is how you choose to interpret reality.
“why can't God's days be beyond our clocks?” Is this another way to say the Earth might be older than 6000 years by our clocks? That’s my point of view and I don’t consider myself a young earther.
I’m really proud of you for trying. You expressed it well. The new-age apikorsim are very hard to argue with. They are smart, and they are determined. It could be, as women, we are more comfortable with suspended knowledge. We can live with contradictions, with not knowing EVERYTHING.
I don't believe that term is used prior to Mt Sinai.
But my question is: what's your basis for saying a day in the creation story isn't a 24-hour period?
It was certainly understood that way. We have seforim that painstakingly analyse what time it must have been around the world when the sun appeared on day 4.
It's either literal, or it isn't. And if it isn't, that opens up all sorts of possibilities, like an old Universe.
Tell me something
Do you believe the earth had vegetation, oceans, light, and coastlines before it had a sun?
let me ask you a question. If the big bang is God speaking and saying, 'let there be light'. then the Torah account has both water and earth pre-existing. There was the Spirit of God brooding over the waters. The earth was formless darkness.
How do you account for the pre-existing water and earth before the first day?
That's a good point. I wasn't saying it was an epoch. I was saying it could mean anything because day and night prior to the sun moon and stars is obviously not the same as what we know.
"How do you account for the pre-existing water and earth before the first day?" I don't think this is a hard question to understand. Although I do understand you might struggle with an answer. I think you ought to try. It is an uninteresting discussion when only one party gets to ask questions.
Job is asked, "were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
What is time without a metric? Speed of light, the movements of the Sun Moon and Stars? Dendrochronology, tree rings? Ice cores? Radioactive Isotopes? To speak of the age of the earth, indeed the age the universe, we must speak first of the metrics we use to measure time.
Blessed be He who gave us Torah. Is Torah a clock? Is it a time piece to measure God and His creation?
Oh to be like Job! To answer, "I am vile" I believe I don't know what clock to use to answer wisely. Let us rest on the seventh day. The concept of time that defines the creation. Let us be like God and rest. And stop arguing about how old the world is - we are so dumb to think we can answer that question.
Imagine the Sabbath is a metric for measuring. Measuring is another word for observing. To understand time as a metric, instead of trying to use time as a metric, and then believing in the Torah creation - all of a sudden we observe God resting on the seventh day. More than resting on the seventh day, he is blessing it, sanctifying it. We take God's measure and the measure of His and our created works in a day, a particular day. A morning and an evening.
If time is the measure of distance. Then I know where we are and what time it is. We are at the center of the universe and the time is now. Ask any infant.
I am suggesting that the calendar marks the beginning of our time. Before the creation of man, the simple meaning of the text is that it is unknown what is meant by day.
Your takeaway from Benthams post is that he has Rabbi potential? 😂
Would that all rabbis were like him in their comprehension of these issues. Also there's no need to be a literalist of the Torah. There are plenty of textual problems when you're trying to take a literalist view and thinking of the world's creation that way.
Perhaps I should have explained this more, But I think the simple translation is perfectly consistent with an old looking Earth. Hence Adam being created an adult.
You should probably post this as a comment so he reads it
I tagged him.
Maybe the rocks are from far away in the universe but the actual togetherness of everything and the life forces etc., are young. Like meteors caught in centrifugal forces.
I love that you tackle the tough issues.
Did god also create the world with human structures and remains that are older than 5785 years?
You say this like “create” is a word that I understand
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you not understand my question? Do you not understand what the word create means in this context? You are claiming that god created the world looking old. In the same sense that you understand create in that context, respond to my question regarding all the evidence of human activity and civilization prior to 5785.
I don't want to say anything that sounds like Omphalos Hypothesis. The evidence you describe exists.
So you’re declining to answer my question.
Saying that either
1. It was young
2. God is fooling us
Is a false binary. I don't accept it.
I didn’t say it was. I’m posing a simple question. You’re trying to account for the claims of Young Eartb creationism being absurd. I’m simply pointing out a factor that you didn’t address.
I'm really not sure what you're gesturing at here. I've heard "Six days for God might be a billion years for us" before, and of course many theists believe that evolution happened but under God's direction, reconciling Darwin and religion that way. But none of this explains Young Earth creationism as true. The only solution I see is what Bentham suggests: a world that is less than 6000 years old but in which literally all available physical evidence says it's vastly older is one in which God has deliberately created an elaborate model universe just to fool us.
Saying that either
1. It was young
2. God is fooling us
Is a false binary. I don't accept it.
So what are the other options? Wny would God create a young universe indistinguishable from an ancient one, and then just expect us to believe what's written in a book and not our lying eyes?
So for some reason I can't seem to tag you to reply to your comment, See my other comments
I tried to tag you in my note, but may be I should just respond here
1. Check out my recent book review: Book Review: On the Origin of Time.
2. By framing it as a strict binary, you're essentially asking: If Adam had a belly button, does that mean God created him with false evidence of a mother—just to fool us?
As I wrote, religious people don’t believe in God because there’s evidence for a young Earth—there isn’t. The real question is how you choose to interpret reality.
“why can't God's days be beyond our clocks?” Is this another way to say the Earth might be older than 6000 years by our clocks? That’s my point of view and I don’t consider myself a young earther.
Yes, and this supports my line about there not being a neat binary between superstitious YECs and scientists
You say that you believe every word to be literally true. And then argue that days isn't literal?
A day has precise meaning. It's not a linguistically flexible term that can also means millenia (poetic metaphor in Tehilim aside).
The concept of Shabbos and the 7-day week derives directly from the 7 days of creation.
You're just using allegory and then claiming not to.
No, I'm using dialectical reasoning. A Jew has precise meaning, but prior Mt Sinai, it wouldn't literally mean someone who got the Torah.
I’m really proud of you for trying. You expressed it well. The new-age apikorsim are very hard to argue with. They are smart, and they are determined. It could be, as women, we are more comfortable with suspended knowledge. We can live with contradictions, with not knowing EVERYTHING.
Thanks!
I don't believe that term is used prior to Mt Sinai.
But my question is: what's your basis for saying a day in the creation story isn't a 24-hour period?
It was certainly understood that way. We have seforim that painstakingly analyse what time it must have been around the world when the sun appeared on day 4.
It's either literal, or it isn't. And if it isn't, that opens up all sorts of possibilities, like an old Universe.
Tell me something
Do you believe the earth had vegetation, oceans, light, and coastlines before it had a sun?
what term?
The term Jewish
let me ask you a question. If the big bang is God speaking and saying, 'let there be light'. then the Torah account has both water and earth pre-existing. There was the Spirit of God brooding over the waters. The earth was formless darkness.
How do you account for the pre-existing water and earth before the first day?
Is this addressed to me?
I never mentioned the Big Bang
I didn't say you did
Then I don't understand your question. I've not expressed my view, don't intend to here.
What I was asking originally is this:
The OP stated she was a young earth creationist, because she reads Genesis 1 literally.
And then proceeded to say that 'day' could me an epoch, not 24 hours.
I'm just pointing out that to me, those are contradictory statements.
It's either literal, or it's not. And if not, there's no textual basis for YEC.
That's a good point. I wasn't saying it was an epoch. I was saying it could mean anything because day and night prior to the sun moon and stars is obviously not the same as what we know.
Ok.
But if it 'can mean anything'
Then why must one believe the world is 5785?
That assumes it means 6x24 hours. And by claiming that, you're saying it must and only means that.
"How do you account for the pre-existing water and earth before the first day?" I don't think this is a hard question to understand. Although I do understand you might struggle with an answer. I think you ought to try. It is an uninteresting discussion when only one party gets to ask questions.
Again, is this addressed to me?
I think your assumptions about what I do or don't account for are mistaken.
I haven't at any point expressed my understanding of Genesis 1 in this conversation, and don't intend to do so here.
Maybe in a post one day.
The calendar begins with the creation of man on the sixth day.
Job is asked, "were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
What is time without a metric? Speed of light, the movements of the Sun Moon and Stars? Dendrochronology, tree rings? Ice cores? Radioactive Isotopes? To speak of the age of the earth, indeed the age the universe, we must speak first of the metrics we use to measure time.
Blessed be He who gave us Torah. Is Torah a clock? Is it a time piece to measure God and His creation?
Oh to be like Job! To answer, "I am vile" I believe I don't know what clock to use to answer wisely. Let us rest on the seventh day. The concept of time that defines the creation. Let us be like God and rest. And stop arguing about how old the world is - we are so dumb to think we can answer that question.
Beautifully stated.
Imagine the Sabbath is a metric for measuring. Measuring is another word for observing. To understand time as a metric, instead of trying to use time as a metric, and then believing in the Torah creation - all of a sudden we observe God resting on the seventh day. More than resting on the seventh day, he is blessing it, sanctifying it. We take God's measure and the measure of His and our created works in a day, a particular day. A morning and an evening.
If time is the measure of distance. Then I know where we are and what time it is. We are at the center of the universe and the time is now. Ask any infant.
Ok.
But are you then suggesting that the calendar doesn't demarcation the beginning of time, and the universe?
In which case, young earth creationist is a misnomer. Because creation preceeded the start of counting by an untold number of years?
Also, this would suggest that day 6 is a 24 hour period, but days 1 through 5 aren't?
I wouldn't want to read it that way. I think terms must be consistent within a single chapter at the very least.
I am suggesting that the calendar marks the beginning of our time. Before the creation of man, the simple meaning of the text is that it is unknown what is meant by day.