The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.
Where is God's hand in all this? In the original creation of many life forms and the establishment of the laws of nature.
I can't use the term "evolution" because it brings to (my) mind a godless universe ever changing from an originally chaotic "Big Bang" to the wondrous order we see all around us (indeed with its pockets of seeming chaos - those things that scientists have not yet defined). Chaos breeds chaos; order, order. I believe things are what they are in the physical universe because God decreed it to be so.
I'm not sure I follow - the universe was roughly 9,000,000,000 years old when Earth formed - I doubt the condition of spacetime was all that different than now, that far along.The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.
It's not quite so simple, as if it were purely "to separate the steps" it would make a lot more sense to put dry land with separating the waters in day 2, and not with plants in day 3. Also, that requires an explanation for what determines how the steps break up.
Personally, I prefer the interpretation by Gerald Schroeder, in which the "days" do refer to days of 24 hours...but from the space-time coordinates of that time rather than adjusting it to match our own space-time coordinates. (Essentially, don't redshift it the way all the usual calculations do.)
I'm not sure I follow - the universe was roughly 9,000,000,000 years old when Earth formed - I doubt the condition of spacetime was all that different than now, that far along.The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.
It's not quite so simple, as if it were purely "to separate the steps" it would make a lot more sense to put dry land with separating the waters in day 2, and not with plants in day 3. Also, that requires an explanation for what determines how the steps break up.
Personally, I prefer the interpretation by Gerald Schroeder, in which the "days" do refer to days of 24 hours...but from the space-time coordinates of that time rather than adjusting it to match our own space-time coordinates. (Essentially, don't redshift it the way all the usual calculations do.)
Latest scientific calculations; which is determined by astronomical observances+calculations of the furthest we can see, the known "edge" of the universe puts our universe of at least the age of 13.7 billion years old. Its figured out via by the distance light has to travel, and what we are seeing of these very distant stars was the status they were 13.7 billion years ago due to light travel.
Personally speaking, this is only my opinion, if there is a god I am not sure he/she/it is purely Earth or human focused, given we know the Earth is roughly only 4 billion years old.
If a god exists, at least in my eyes, it is much more universal in its views and we'd have to be only one of many creations; otherwise the only other theory would be is that this god got bored/ suddenly decided to change its plan of course; if the universe was formed/started whatever you will it 13.7 billion years ago, we merely being roughly 4 billion, that leaves 9.7 billion years or around of a universe without any form of life, and far far longer without sentient life/humanoid life/ life shaped in "god's image."
Purely? Perhaps not. But a god who didn't care about humans at all would be irrelevant.
Or that God is willing to work through a plan whose fulfillment isn't seen for quite some time. Which fits well with the Bible's portrayal of God's plan for human history too...
Purely? Perhaps not. But a god who didn't care about humans at all would be irrelevant.
I never stated this god would be uncaring, just that it cannot for all intents and purposes in my eyes be human centrist.
Perhaps, which would paint this god in a much more patient, long term minded entity- though it is indeed a fair bit different then what we perceived is it's potential plan.
It all comes down to personal belief on this, but in my humble opinion I think if a god exists its both much more grander and enigmatic then previously believed to be, and we are not the center of the universe as we'd like to believe. I think if there is a god of some form, its one that is, sure, benevolent and caring of its creations, if even just as an observer with a paternal outlook; we are not the sole inheritors of its observations and love. While we have not encountered life yet in space it is mathematically inconceivable that we are alone in this universe. Maybe sentient life is not very common- but it exists. And due to that notion I think a god is way more universal and broad in its vision then we could ever imagine.
Original plan as detailed in the bible; the order of how genesis occurred.
And for human centrism, the reason why that's important to Abrahamic theists is that in the bible it is stated that God made man in his own image. If there is other life forms with sentience... well that is a bit of a conundrum then isn't it?
I think the bottom line comes down to interpretation, as it is with all Religions, AND Ideologies for that matter too.
It is where one stands on whether god's image merely meant sentience, even if it is different forms of sentience. This god could very well be expressing him/her/itself through all of its creation-
but another could argue a more human centrist philosophy as well. It is very much the same with every ideal I find, even my own.
Yitzi, would you call yourself Orthodox or what? I'm really asking.
Yeah. Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."
Yeah. Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."
When I hear about "orthodox" Jews, I always have the Chadisim (sp?) community in Antwerp in mind. They come over as living "way back in the dark times" to me. Now you make me wondering if these people are following the modern denomiation or not.
It is worth noting that the Samaritans would, naturally, differ with the above about them and who the true Jews are.
If it isn't too nosy of me, Yitzi, how long are your sideburns?
Hat or yarmulke?
I've just never met anyone as hard-core as you, and I'm curious. (And I feel uncomfortable asking, because I like you too much to not care if I offend.)
Charles Darwin's Evolution: Did His Anxieties Shape His Science?http://news.yahoo.com/charles-darwins-evolution-did-anxieties-shape-science-183513196.html (http://news.yahoo.com/charles-darwins-evolution-did-anxieties-shape-science-183513196.html)
LiveScience.com
By Denise Chow, Staff Writer 8 hours ago
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/7AS4dq9X8_yfQ0MByRYUUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTgwODtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01NzU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/LiveScience.com/051111_darwin_portrait_02.jpg1327096404)
This is one of the last photographs taken of Charles Darwin, who developed the theory of evolution whereby changes in species are driven, over time, by natural and sexual selection.
NEW YORK — How much did Charles Darwin's personal anxieties influence his work on the theory of evolution? Did the tragedy of losing his mother at an early age shape the type of scientist he would become?
Dr. Gail Saltz, an associate professor of psychiatry at the New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, and David Kohn, founder and director of the Darwin Manuscripts Project at the American Museum of Natural History, discussed these and other intimately personal questions about Darwin on Monday (March 3) here at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.
The speakers examined the so-called psychobiography of Darwin, which involves using modern psychological research and theory to peel back the mystique of historical figures, in an effort to better understand their lives. Through the lens of psychology, Saltz and Kohn tried to figure out the motives that governed Darwin's actions and the issues that drove his ambitions.
A lasting legacy
Darwin is best known for his work on the theory of evolution, which he detailed in his seminal book, "On the Origin of Species." The book, published in 1859, stated that all life on Earth descended over time from common ancestors, and a process of natural selection governs the branching pattern of biological changes.
Darwin's contributions helped him become one of the most influential scientists in history, but his theory of evolution by natural selection remains controversial to this day. Biblical literalists reject Darwin's theory, believing instead in creationism, which focuses on the idea that God created animals and humans in their current form some 6,000 years ago, as described in Genesis.
Yet, Darwin's experiences early in his life may have taught him how to protect against the onslaught of criticism that would be lobbed his way from people championing competing theories, according to Saltz.
Darwin was born into a wealthy family on Feb. 12, 1809. But tragedy struck early, and Darwin's mother died when the boy was just 8 years old. His older sisters became the maternal figures.
"His sisters were like mothers to him, and they were very critical," Saltz said. "He learned to protect himself from criticism, and maybe learned to develop a sense of oppositional defiance, which becomes prophetic."
Darwin's father, Robert, was a doctor, and was very strict with his son, the researchers said. Robert had aspirations for his son to follow in his footsteps, but Charles felt indifferent about medicine, Kohn said.
"He liked observing his father practice, but when he went to [the University of] Edinburgh Medical School, other things drew him in," he said.
Yet, despite going on to pursue his interest in natural science, Darwin maintained a strong desire to please his father, and Robert Darwin's death in 1848 would have a profound effect on the naturalist, Saltz said.
On his own origin
Another key to unraveling Darwin's psychobiography involves analyzing the scientist's internal anxiety, Saltz said. Before embarking on his five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle — during which time he would begin to develop his theory of evolution — Darwin experienced anxiety attacks, headaches and eczema-type skin irritations, she added.
"Historians have looked at this and think it's very psychosomatic," Saltz said, referring to the idea that Darwin's physical ailments may have been accompanied — or even aggravated — by mental suffering brought on by stress and anxiety.
Darwin's anxiety persisted throughout his life, and culminated in what might be diagnosed as a nervous breakdown shortly after the death of his father, according to Saltz.
"He wanted his father's approval so much, and this remained to the end of his father's life," she said. "After his father's death, Charles goes through a period where he's really not well."
These troubles may explain why nearly 21 years passed between when Darwin began writing his theory of evolution, and when "On the Origin of Species" was finally published in 1859, Saltz added.
"He holds back in publishing, and waits decades," Saltz said. "There was a long period when he had these ideas, had written these ideas, but didn't publish them. Sometimes we see that production is blocked when patients are depressed."
Yet, despite suffering bouts of anxiety and having to navigate around critical family members, Darwin's upbringing likely also shaped his unique scientific talents, the researchers said.
"He was remarkably vigilant as an observer," Saltz said. "This may have been honed by having a father who was highly critical. All of this may have translated into him being a great observer of nature."
Yeah. Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."
When I hear about "orthodox" Jews, I always have the Chadisim (sp?) community in Antwerp in mind. They come over as living "way back in the dark times" to me. Now you make me wondering if these people are following the modern denomiation or not.
Basically, the way it breaks up is as follows:
Yeah. Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."
When I hear about "orthodox" Jews, I always have the Chadisim (sp?) community in Antwerp in mind. They come over as living "way back in the dark times" to me. Now you make me wondering if these people are following the modern denomiation or not.
Basically, the way it breaks up is as follows:
Thank you. :)
Just wondering, but during my first vacation in Israel (back in the mid nineties), I took a walk through the Mea Shearim suburb in Jerusalem. Do you happen to live there?
The planet is either out there or it isn't. Faith isn't going to make a bit of difference as to whether or not it exists.
Bumped for Elok...
"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.
Quote from: blog post"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.
Elok, how do you figure Noah did it without help? I don't think the Bible actually makes that claim, though good job getting enough workers on the project and leaving them behind...
I'm often flabbergasted at the mythology surrounding Christopher Columbus. His basic motive was to get rich and acquire political power. The way he treated the natives was abominable. I really don't understand why he's celebrated. And contrary to what I can only surmise is commonly taught in the average American schools when it comes to history (since it's always news to the American Mormon missionaries who turn up on my doorstep), Columbus wasn't the first European on this continent. The Vikings beat him by 500 years, and there's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland to prove it.I go into more detail about it elsewhere on the blog. Basically, I believe modern Westerners in general allow their belief in historical progress to blind them to the fact that their ancestors were intellectually more or less their equals, at least in terms of raw ability. It's disconcertingly common for people to condescend to them, or even make up and perpetuate flat-out lies like "Columbus's friends thought the world was flat" for the sake of a clean, self-vindicating narrative.Quote from: blog post"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.
I'm often flabbergasted at the mythology surrounding Christopher Columbus. His basic motive was to get rich and acquire political power. The way he treated the natives was abominable. I really don't understand why he's celebrated. And contrary to what I can only surmise is commonly taught in the average American schools when it comes to history (since it's always news to the American Mormon missionaries who turn up on my doorstep), Columbus wasn't the first European on this continent. The Vikings beat him by 500 years, and there's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland to prove it.I go into more detail about it elsewhere on the blog. Basically, I believe modern Westerners in general allow their belief in historical progress to blind them to the fact that their ancestors were intellectually more or less their equals, at least in terms of raw ability. It's disconcertingly common for people to condescend to them, or even make up and perpetuate flat-out lies like "Columbus's friends thought the world was flat" for the sake of a clean, self-vindicating narrative.Quote from: blog post"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.
(is there a multiquote function here? I can't find it)-Which I just did before I quoted.
Go ahead and start a Tolkien thread, if you like; this'n seems likely to get cluttered. As a starter, though, from what I know of him it's problematic to pigeonhole him as one thing or another politically. He had a very elaborate and rigid view of the universe derived from his intense Catholicism, but this didn't always make him a reactionary. He was obviously sympathetic to environmentalism, for example, and loathed the Nazis with a burning passion (http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-have-no-ancestors-of-that-gifted.html) even before the war (I frickin' love that letter).Will do.
I'm basically agnostic on Noah, but have a hard time believing that the story happened anything like actually described; it requires me to insert divine intervention for essentially no reason at every turn. Given the oft-noted ubiquity of ancient flood narratives, it likely has some basis in fact, but that's all we can say.
QuoteI'm basically agnostic on Noah, but have a hard time believing that the story happened anything like actually described; it requires me to insert divine intervention for essentially no reason at every turn. Given the oft-noted ubiquity of ancient flood narratives, it likely has some basis in fact, but that's all we can say.
Just for your information on the flood nowhere in the Bible does is say the Flood was global.
The Flood was local (the word used is land or area as I recall) the deluge was global.
One pastor I've met online has literally translated the entire Bible word for word to check the meanings of words.
Also bear in mind that block Hebrew is not Hebrew. Real Hebrew is a truly ancient language that looks like
hieroglyphics or runes almost.