Chazal, Science, Controversy ... - Slifkin

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 20 21 22 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Lechatchila Ariber

Mon, Jul 09 2007, 7:10 pm

Motek wrote:

http://beismoshiach.org/_pdf/607.pdf

the article "a chassid and mathematician"

when I clicked on that link a pdf file opened that was full of empty pages Confused

Motek

Mon, Jul 09 2007, 10:21 pm

I checked out the link and it works fine for me. Don't know why not for you Confused

poelmamosh wrote:

what day of the wk does it get posted

Wed.

Lechatchila Ariber

Mon, Jul 09 2007, 10:27 pm

can you copy and paste it maybe?

TorahMom48

Fri, Jul 20 2007, 2:25 am

Tzvi Freedman has his answer and Rabbi Slifkn has his answer, and those who wish to believe one way will follow those like Freedman and those who wish to believe a different way will follow those like slifkin. simple as that.

TzenaRena

Fri, Jul 20 2007, 9:30 am

Did you read the article? Because it doesn't sound like you did. And it's not a question of choosing what you like better. It's a question of truth. In metzius there can't be a conflict.

HindaRochel

Fri, Jul 20 2007, 9:42 am

TR,
You are simply wrong.
Of course there can be disagreement and of course there are those who bring proof that evolution is consistent with Torah.
You simply don't like the answers.
I am allowed to disagree and follow the Rabbi's I follow with out calls of apikorus.

Motek

Fri, Jul 20 2007, 3:12 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

Of course there can be disagreement and of course there are those who bring proof that evolution is consistent with Torah.
You simply don't like the answers.

For good reason. Because they are apologetics. Pathetic attempts to make Torah fit science. Absolutely not comparable to Torah-true answers.

HindaRochel

Sat, Jul 21 2007, 2:00 pm

Motek wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Of course there can be disagreement and of course there are those who bring proof that evolution is consistent with Torah.
You simply don't like the answers.

For good reason. Because they are apologetics. Pathetic attempts to make Torah fit science. Absolutely not comparable to Torah-true answers.

What you are saying isn't true. But keep saying it if it makes you feel better. He brings proof from the Torah. You don't like it, don't read him, but don't make it out to be anti-Torah when it most decidely is not.

Motek

Mon, Jul 23 2007, 12:48 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

What you are saying isn't true.

what a convincing argument!

Quote:

He brings proof from the Torah. You don't like it, don't read him, but don't make it out to be anti-Torah when it most decidely is not.

His "proofs" are not proofs. He either quotes out of context or doesn't understand the application of what he is quoting. In addition to which he is ignoring the manner in which Jewish belief is established.

This is not a matter of "liking" or not liking or personal preference. These are serious issues and misappropriating sources for self-serving purposes, even with good intentions, can border on heresy which is a halachic (not hashkafic) designation.

Motek

Mon, Jul 23 2007, 12:50 pm

HindaRochel - on a personal note, would you mind telling us why you opt to accept Slifkin's approach?

amother

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 7:32 pm

Personally, I'm sick and tired of people putting "science" before the Torah. Seriously, now, what are people thinking?! The Torah is Emes, emes, emes and science is at best misinformed because scientists are athiests and at worst outright lies.

"Science" says the world is millions of years old, we know it to be only 5767. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

"Science" says that man evolved from apes which evolved from monkeys which evolved from something else which evolved from ducks which evolved from slime. The Torah says that we were created with a Tzelem Elokim. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

"Science" says that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. The Torah tells us that the sun, moon and planets revolve around the earth. We know the Torah is right because HaShem gave it to us.

"Science" tells us that the Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water on the planet. The Torah tells us that the Mediterranean is the largest (hence it's name "yam hagadol"). We know the Torah is right because it comes from the One who created the Oceans.

"Science" tells us that Mt. Everest is the highest point on the Earth. The Torah tells us that Eretz Yisroel is higher than all other lands. The Torah is right because it was written by the One who made all the lands.

"Science" tells us that there are eight planets. Well, that's what they're telling us this year. Last year it was nine. Next year it might be ten. The Torah, on the other hand, tells us that there are six planets in addition to the sun and the moon. We know the Torah is right because it was written by the One who created the sun, moon and planets.

In other words, science is wrong and the Torah is right. I don't see how anyone can follow science when it changes it's position constantly, can't figure out simple things like what's the highest place on earth or the largest body of water, or the number of planets. If they can't follow that, why should I "science" when it says that people came from apes and that the world happened by itself in a happy little accident?

Lechatchila Ariber

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 10:20 pm

I had this discussion with someone.

In a midrash from aicha, a story is told how the people of Athens (center of Greek learning) invited the chachomim of Yerushalayim to a discussion.
They asked a question
"with what do you preserve salt?"
the answer: "with the after birth of a mule"
now a mule which is a cross breed animal is a sterile one so there is no after birth but the question of course was a ludicrous one. you don't preserve salt, salt itself is a preservative.

The person explaining this to me repeated an explanation she had heard that the Greeks were alluding to torah.
"Torah which is like your salt, what do you do if it goes bad? how do you preserve it"
and the answer, if you try to explain and understand Torah through the secular, through science, then its like creating a mule which is sterile.

If you try to understand science by using Torah as the criteria, then that's one thing.
But using science as the criteria to understand torah,which is trying to preserve a preservative is crossing a mare with a jack.

HindaRochel

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 10:34 pm

Motek wrote:

HindaRochel - on a personal note, would you mind telling us why you opt to accept Slifkin's approach?

It makes sense. It is in accordance with Torah. It puts Torah first. It gives a greater depth of understanding to the miracle of creation. It intensifies the beauty of wisdom of Hashem and Hashem's creation. It shows the compatiblity between Torah and Science, that they are not in conflict.

By the way, apologetics is defined as:
Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Lechatchila Ariber

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 10:39 pm

Quote:

It puts Torah first.

If you are using science as the criteria in which to understand the words of torah then how is that putting torah first?
(see my above post)

HindaRochel

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 10:51 pm

Either you didn't read the book or you didn't understand it, because it dosen't use science to explain Torah, it does show how science and Torah are compatible, and it shows how science is supported by Torah and vice versa...ie, the findings of Science support the Torah.

Rabbi's are constantly jumping up and down when something in science proves a gemora or Torah point of view. This book simply shows how science and Torah not only don't conflict but are in accordance with each other.

Lechatchila Ariber

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 11:43 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

Either you didn't read the book or you didn't understand it,
.

the book says that a day in chumash doesn't refer to a 24 hour cycle but rather refers to something consistant with scientific belief.
does it not?

Quote:

because it dosen't use science to explain Torah, it does show how science and Torah are compatible, and it shows how science is supported by Torah and vice versa...ie, the findings of Science support the Torah.

if the answer to my question above is yes then it contradicts with your statement right above mine.
it sounds more like slifkin is saying that the words of torah support science, and doesn't contradict it as in a day doesn't really mean a day...etc

HindaRochel

Tue, Jul 24 2007, 11:53 pm

EstiS wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Either you didn't read the book or you didn't understand it,
.

the book says that a day in chumash doesn't refer to a 24 hour cycle but rather refers to something consistant with scientific belief.
does it not?

You are correct. It doesn't take a 24 hr view of a day.

Quote:

and here(the first part) you are wrong. The book shows how science and Torah do not conflict. It shows Torah and science are compatible. It shows the integrity of the words of the Torah and how they are validated by science, it doesn't state one NEEDS science to validate Torah. ie, it starts from a Torah view, not from a science view. When I state it doesn't use science to explain Torah, I mean it doesn't start from science and tries to see if Torah is compatible, but the opposite. It starts from the concept that Torah is true, and tries to see if science, as we understand it today, is compatible with Torah.

The second part is true...so what is your problem with science being supported by Torah?

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 1:05 am

you haven't answered my question, you merely said I was wrong

EstiS wrote:

the book says that a day in chumash doesn't refer to a 24 hour cycle but rather refers to something consistant with scientific belief.
does it not?

if it doesn't say that then what does it say?
because thats what you and healthymama have been saying all along.
Either that or tzena, motek, and myself all have reading comprehension problems Confused

HindaRochel

Wed, Jul 25 2007, 1:26 am

EstiS wrote:

you haven't answered my question, you merely said I was wrong

EstiS wrote:

the book says that a day in chumash doesn't refer to a 24 hour cycle but rather refers to something consistant with scientific belief.
does it not?

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:
Either you didn't read the book or you didn't understand it,

Quote:

the book says that a day in chumash doesn't refer to a 24 hour cycle but rather refers to something consistant with scientific belief.
does it not?

Quote:

You are correct. It doesn't take a 24 hr view of a day

I did answer it, see above. I answered it several times--- you go search for where I've answered before.

The book states that the words "a day" don't mean a 24hr day, and shows valid Rabbinical (not new age Rabbi's) support for that statement. And that is the issue, you have got things backward. Yes a day, according to Slifkin's theroy, is consistent with science, but that isn't because we are striving to make Torah compatible with science, it is because Torah is compatible with science, and science is compatible with Torah...there isn't a disagreement. It shows that the Torah was way ahead of science in understanding how the world works.

It is sort of like saying "Well didn't Johnny say the scarf was blue and it really is cerulean..." But cerulean IS a blue color. There isn't a fight.

Torah states what a day is. Other Rabbi's in the past have talked about a day in terms of something other than a 24 hour period. There isn't a contradiction.

He doesn't demand you accept his theories and neither do I. I find his theories valid, and see it as enhancing, not detracting, from my love of Torah. WOW, science is behind Torah in its thinking process. Look what the Torah and the Rabbi's have been saying all along. How in the world could they have known this back then if they weren't imbued with the spirit of Hashem?

So nu, what is your problem? Torah is smarter than science. Only now is science stating what Torah has said all along. And if you don't like his explantion, don't think I'm going against Torah because I do. To me there is no contradiction, no need to modify Torah, no need to distort Torah. To me there is only beauty and an stronger emunah and frisson and appreciation of the wonderous works of Hashem, the gift of creation and the marvels of Torah.....

Motek

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 12:10 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

it starts from a Torah view, not from a science view. When I state it doesn't use science to explain Torah, I mean it doesn't start from science and tries to see if Torah is compatible, but the opposite. It starts from the concept that Torah is true, and tries to see if science, as we understand it today, is compatible with Torah.

Okay, so we have to more clearly define what we mean when we say "starting from Torah." You say it means, "starting from the concept that Torah is true."

What I mean when I say it is, looking into Torah exclusively, to arrive at a conclusion.

So when I say that Slifkin attempts to make the Torah compatible with science, I mean that he did NOT look exclusively into Torah sources to arrive at his conclusions. In fact, not one Amora, Gaon, Rishon, or Acharon held that the world has been around for billions of years, nor that people evolved from apes etc.

It is ONLY once SCIENCE made some assertions in the past century or so, that some rabbis presented a position that was never the Jewish position previously.

p.s. Which rabbis do you know of who "jump up and down" when a scientific discovery corroborates something in Torah? I can tell you that in my reading, such articles are always prefaced by - our belief is not predicated on outside corroboration but it's nice to see that ...

Page 21 of 22

Previous 1 2 3 20 21 22 Next