Re: Round earth in judaism

In article <sp7h62lg32o1oedo4h1pfppv63rudqa12u@xxxxxxx>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2006 06:53:51 +0000 (UTC), in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , yacovachi@xxxxxxx in
<1147581681.151647.170860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Matt Silberstein wrote:
Feh. We believe that Netzach Yisrael lo y'shaker. Hashem doesn't lie.
The Mabul happened.

Which do you believe, the world itself or a book in the world?

I reject the premise of your question that there is an opposition
somehow.

Which was not the premise. The OP presented a view of the Torah that
contradicts with observations of the world so the problem is the
OP'ers.

You think the "world" is objective? It is as YOU perceive it.

Really? I think that falling out a 40 story window is going to kill me
no matter how I perceive it. I think that the world is, objective
applies to (some) statements about the world, not the world itself.

You
mispeceive the book and the world as far as I can tell.

It is not my perception of the Book that contradicts the observed
world.

In my religion the Book and the world are each books by the SAME
author.

Which has more authority regarding the world, the world itself or the
Book *in the world*?

This is the key point. God created the universe, and He
set it up with laws governing its behavior. He also
endowed us with brains to be able to try to understand
those laws, which are self-enforcing. For us to be able
to understand those laws, they cannot change arbitrarily.
The sages who wrote Pirke Avoth, Chapter 5, had problems
with miracles, even with their lack of understanding of
scientific principles which we have today.

The Book was written by people coming from a particular
culture, or set of cultures, and with a particular amount
of understanding of the universe. We do have records of
the beliefs of those other cultures, which are earlier
than any claims of when the Book was produced as we have
it. The similarities are great. The major differences are
due to a uniqueness of God, and a lack of other deities.

Yet there are even hints of that, in discussing the reasons
for the Flood. Genesis 6:2, and the sons of God saw the
daughters of men, ... . The other cultures they knew had
gods and demigods consorting with women.

There are hints of the creation of the universe according
to our understanding, and I read it that way, but these are
not conclusive. As to the origin of life, no, as they had
no idea of how it could have begun.

I can read each somewhat and see no contradiction so far.

How nice. My point stands: observations of the world contradict the
claim that there was a world-wide flood in the last several hundred
thousand years. (In does more, but we can ignore that.) If your
understanding of the Torah allows that, fine. If not then you have a
problem. You can ignore what the world itself looks like or you can
re-think you understanding of the Torah. Give a contradiction between
observations of the world and interpretation of an object in the world
which has more authority?

One can find this in Maimonides. Reasoning forces us to
this conclusion. However, ignoring facts does not seem
to deter the followers of any religion in which there are
canonical texts, or even if these do not exist.

I
see contradiction between what people say about each and between what
some people say about one and what those same people say about the
other.

I do not believe those people are very intelligent.

Which people?

Just as I beleive that your premise that the "world" is immaculately
perceived is hogwash.

I had no such premise. I just notice that *for me* the Torah is an
object in the world. I can't read some other eternal Torah, I can only
look at a physical object in the world in a language spoken by humans.
I can only read and understand that object if I accept certain
fundamental epistemological principles. In particular I have to accept
some set of unchanging rules and some kind of existent physical
reality.

I agree. At best, those who wrote the Torah were highly
influenced by God, who may well have inspired their thoughts.
However, this inspiration was filtered through their brain
patterns into what they could understand, and within the
limits of their cultures.

Every culture seems to have God, or gods, creating the
various plants, animals, and humans in the recent past.
I am not saying that the people would not have understood
evolution, but they would not have thought of it. Many
of the legends would have been difficult if it had been
in vogue, as the only reasons they had for the animals
not speaking was that God was preventing them, and that
He sometimes broke the rules and allowed them to speak.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.

Relevant Pages
Loading